Ron Paul supporters fight back, defending Kelly Clarkson after she tweeted support for Ron Paul

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Actually, you are wrong.

Kelly Clarkson's support IS better than yours and mine and I'll tell you why.

Because people follow, listen to, and idolize celebrities.

Besides maybe a few nephews, children, and grandchildren - who do you have following and idolizing you? I know I don't have a slew of millions of supporters ready to jump at MY every whim. Celebrities do.

Is it fair? Is it smart? Is it morally right? No on all count. But people are sheep. They follow. Kelly Clarkson's support is likely to earn the support of many of her fans to Ron Paul's side and thus, yes to you and BH, it WILL increase Ron Paul's votes, it might cause more celebrities to open up about their support for him, and in turn it will increase Paul's votes EVEN MORE.

It isn't rocket science to see that America is obsessed with celebrity culture. It is sad, but it is also a tool that can be used to push people in the right direction.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 



REALLY?

No one cares what KELLY clarkson has to say about politics
let her sing and dance, stay out of politics.


If only that were true.


In this day and age, 14 year old girls may not be able to vote, but they can stomp their feet, and cry and DEMAND that mommy and daddy vote for who they want. And you can't beat them or discipline them, and medication only goes so far, and nobody wants a screaming teenage girl in their house at dinner time, so most parents just do what the kids want.

So, there will be a whole lot of Kelly Clarkson fans influencing the vote.

It is a sad phenomenon, but just look at all the marketing in the country. It is all geared at pubescent teens, because they influence the ones making the purchases (votes).

They used to say Britney Spears had all the marketing power in the world because every middle aged Mom wanted to be her, and every middle aged Man wanted to do her, and all the teenage girls idolized her, and all the teenaged boys wanted to agree with the teenaged girls. Hey..... that gives me an idea...... how do we get Britney to endorse Ron Paul.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This is yet another instance of the media demonstrating for us, the American public, that they create news.

The reason politics is so profitable for the media (and why you must have access to tremendous wealth to run) is because of the practice they have of conditioning the public to believe that if they report it... it matters.

Why follow some celebrity's "tweets" in the first place? Evidently, because the media does.

It's a viscous circle... and to drive the point home... are there not many of us here who would look to have certain celebrity personalities run for office?.... based upon "roles" they played in theatrical productions....

That's how easily public opinion is manipulated.

It's not about what this celebrity thinks, it's not that her fanboys and girls agreed or disagreed, it's not that it's about a presidential election....

It's about the media telling you what matters and needs to be 'paid attention to.'

Tell me, had no one but People Magazine, Entertainment News, or supermarket tabloids "reported" this "news" - would you have heard about it?.... or do you also follow the tweets of the media industry's celebrity creations?
edit on 30-12-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



are there not many of us here who would look to have certain celebrity personalities run for office?....


I'd love to have the Martin Sheen character from West Wing as a president. I think he was supposed to be a Democrat in the show, but he had a lot of Conservative values, and made very good decisions. Too bad the real Martin Sheen is a kook!! The character would have been a great Prez!

Maybe the guy that wrote the script for that character should run for Prez?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Exactly. I'm so tired of this trumped-up "conspiracy" against Paul.

Where was this outrage when the Dixie Chicks were crucified for slamming George Bush? Why are celebrities who endorse Democrats criticized for being "elitists"?

I'm over the Ron Paul pity-party.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 


The Dixie Chicks were WRONG! It is unacceptable for a Country Band, that represents the Conservative values of our nation, to go overseas and blast a sitting president. If they did it to Obama, it would still be WRONG!

If they want to do it inside the states, fine. If they want to be a grunge band, or alternative band and blast the president, then fine. But, you don't make your living as a country band, and then go overseas and say something that you're afraid to say here in the States. They proved themselves to be dishonest posers, and they lost their careers over it. Well-deserved.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by popsmayhem
 



REALLY?

No one cares what KELLY clarkson has to say about politics
let her sing and dance, stay out of politics.


If only that were true.


In this day and age, 14 year old girls may not be able to vote, but they can stomp their feet, and cry and DEMAND that mommy and daddy vote for who they want. And you can't beat them or discipline them, and medication only goes so far, and nobody wants a screaming teenage girl in their house at dinner time, so most parents just do what the kids want.

So, there will be a whole lot of Kelly Clarkson fans influencing the vote.

It is a sad phenomenon, but just look at all the marketing in the country. It is all geared at pubescent teens, because they influence the ones making the purchases (votes).

They used to say Britney Spears had all the marketing power in the world because every middle aged Mom wanted to be her, and every middle aged Man wanted to do her, and all the teenage girls idolized her, and all the teenaged boys wanted to agree with the teenaged girls. Hey..... that gives me an idea...... how do we get Britney to endorse Ron Paul.


I like Paul, I like Britney Spears, grew up with her,
watched her on mickey mouse club almost 20 years ago,
before she was a huge star..

I just do not like all the celebrity worship
I personally can not see how anyone would
vote for Paul based on a tweet from kelllie clarkman



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Actually, you are wrong.

Kelly Clarkson's support IS better than yours and mine and I'll tell you why.

Because people follow, listen to, and idolize celebrities.

Besides maybe a few nephews, children, and grandchildren - who do you have following and idolizing you? I know I don't have a slew of millions of supporters ready to jump at MY every whim. Celebrities do.

Is it fair? Is it smart? Is it morally right? No on all count. But people are sheep. They follow. Kelly Clarkson's support is likely to earn the support of many of her fans to Ron Paul's side and thus, yes to you and BH, it WILL increase Ron Paul's votes, it might cause more celebrities to open up about their support for him, and in turn it will increase Paul's votes EVEN MORE.

It isn't rocket science to see that America is obsessed with celebrity culture. It is sad, but it is also a tool that can be used to push people in the right direction.


80% of her *followers* on twitter can't even vote.

This is not like some big endorsement, chill.
No one is going to vote for Paul because Kelly clarkman
is voting for Paul. It really makes no difference..
Look what they did to Hank JR.!!
Hank Williams Jr. Compares Obama To Hitler, Gets Pulled From 'Monday Night Football'
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thats not even what JR. said. I'm tired of the double standard.

Some celebrities can voice there opinion and it matters
but others don't? Hank JR's endorsement would mean more
then Kelly cLArkmans
edit on 30-12-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


A country band represents our values? Yours maybe. Not mine.

Freedom of speech.

Oh, and the album they put out after all that was a huge success. They didn't lose anything but the adoration of some brain-dead rednecks.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The beauty of this is : The power of the people!

If this works, it shows the power of world wide communication (twitter in this case)

Wonder how long free twittering is allowed by artists... Or anyone else for that matter.


Found this:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You pull that percentage out of thin air, or is there actually some statistic?

I guarantee you that there are people out their so obsessed with celebrities that all their favorite one has to do is say what brand of toothpaste they use, and that will be their only choice from then on. Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean their aren't people out there who do. I have seen them, and many of them, are well old enough to vote.

But comparing this to the Hank Williams Jr. thing is apples and oranges. One endorsed a political candidate, the other ALLEGEDLY compared a president to a dictator that has become taboo to speak of in public throughout the world. In the end, both got bashed for their remarks, but I think it is clear to see, at least in the minds of the viewers, just which one was more serious.

But you say that HWJ endorsement would mean more... why? He is nothing more than a celebrity himself. Albeit, his fans might be a bit older in general, and a bit more on the Conservative scale of things, but under your belief he is just as much of a nobody as Kelly Clarkson, or at least he should be.

But they aren't nobodies, and no whining about it is going to change that. People are going to follow these people like they are gods, and YES, their opinions WILL influence their opinions and their voting principles. It is a simple fact of life for some people. It isn't cool, and I don't like it just as much as you do - but it DOES HAPPEN.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


I'm going to ignore the trolls and keep reporting. in the two hours since I made my first report she has moved from 17 to 14 on amazon s top selling albums and look at the reviews you see it is ron paul supporters rewarding her for standing against the msm.

This support is important as it shows how many people are seeing through the continual steam of lies being spewed by the msm.

hopefully this will encourage people to speak up without fear.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Supporting Ron Paul would mean I'd need to "reward" a millionaire by buying her lousy music?

I'm really glad I don't support Ron Paul.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 


We're really glad you don't also.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


You pull that percentage out of thin air, or is there actually some statistic?

I guarantee you that there are people out their so obsessed with celebrities that all their favorite one has to do is say what brand of toothpaste they use, and that will be their only choice from then on. Just because you don't do it, doesn't mean their aren't people out there who do. I have seen them, and many of them, are well old enough to vote.

But comparing this to the Hank Williams Jr. thing is apples and oranges. One endorsed a political candidate, the other ALLEGEDLY compared a president to a dictator that has become taboo to speak of in public throughout the world. In the end, both got bashed for their remarks, but I think it is clear to see, at least in the minds of the viewers, just which one was more serious.

But you say that HWJ endorsement would mean more... why? He is nothing more than a celebrity himself. Albeit, his fans might be a bit older in general, and a bit more on the Conservative scale of things, but under your belief he is just as much of a nobody as Kelly Clarkson, or at least he should be.

But they aren't nobodies, and no whining about it is going to change that. People are going to follow these people like they are gods, and YES, their opinions WILL influence their opinions and their voting principles. It is a simple fact of life for some people. It isn't cool, and I don't like it just as much as you do - but it DOES HAPPEN.


Yes the 80% was a figure I made up to
try to explain what I meant.
According this article it is actually
turning out bad now.
A little odd.
Kelly Clarkson Loses Fans Over Her Endorsement of Ron Paul
Kelly loses fans


I used to like Kelly Clarkson. But I can't like anyone who is either ignorant enough or arrogant enough to endorse a candidate like Ron Paul,” Spafford Freeman told Fox411 on Thursday from her home in Minnesota. “I have listened to ‘Since You've Been Gone’ for the last time.”

Spafford Freeman’s comments are just part of the pushback the platinum-selling superstar and inaugural "American Idol" winner has been getting since she announced her support of Paul Wednesday night.
mong Clarkson’s critics on Twitter was user @kat_george, who tweeted:
Ew just found out Kelly Clarkson luvs Ron Paul lyk, 4eva and stuff. Soz Kelly, not your fan anymore.
And there was this one from @waflanagan:
Oh Jebus Kelly Clarkson is a Ron Paul fan. My love for you has taken a severe hit, Kelly...
Paul, who like Clarkson hails from Texas, has been roundly criticized over the last few weeks for having published a series of newsletters in the 1980s and ’90s that included racist and homophobic remarks. The newsletters’ content was revealed when Paul ran for president in 2008, but they got less attention because the congressman was never a front-running candidate.


Maybe Kelly Clarkson was paid to tweet that.

These people will do anything for money.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I saw this happening yesterday. I am surprised people reacted the way they did with no decency.

Its kind of a reminder that the USA will never see peace because most of its populations too compulsive and ready to fight... for what? nothing?

no wonder were in all these wars... no wonder America's looked down on by most of the world... just look on how people react to just 1 persons stance and opinion. just.. wow



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Don't you guys get it?

The name, wallet or political past, future whatever is NOT IMPORTANT

It is about the signal!

An artist should be free to speak her mind, and we the people should support that.

And this happen to overcome Kelly, so it is Kelly who should be supported now, and here is the Important part:

Give of a signal, to other artist, public figures etc. They should not be afraid of career by displaying personal believes. And to show the establishment the people will decide for themselves, and are tired of being "told" what to believe.

( And yes, as a little side effect, it would help people as Ron Paul as well )
edit on 30-12-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-12-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


reply to post by jtap66
 


I'm going to go with free speech, too. I don't care who the Dixie Chicks are, assigning them as ambassadors to represent conservative political values (of which Free Speech is a biggie) to the rest of the world, is a bit much of a task for a country band on tour...

JUST like Kelly Clarkson (or Kellie Clarkman
) the Dixie Chicks have the right to express their opinions, political and otherwise. Just like Clarkson, some fans loved what they said, and some fans hated what they said. Whether or not it has a monetary effect on the artists is of ZERO concern to me and irrelevant. The situations are exactly the same, it's just a different political party. Please don't be blinded by that.

I just realized today that I waffle almost daily about whether or not Paul would be good for this country overall. I read and search and still, every day, I wonder... I really would like some input about the issues of my concern. I'm in the process of composing a thread, but I fear it will turn into a screaming Pro/Anti Paul thread... or more likely, will be ignored altogether.


I agree with Maxmars. This is a great example of how the media makes the news.

Does Kelly's opinion mean anything? No more than mine or yours. She's likely to lose some fans and gain others, if only temporarily. Who cares? Yes, she may get Paul some votes. Oprah got Obama some votes, too (but you hated that, didn't you???) And you LOVE this!
Don't you see the hypocrisy? Barbra Streisand, Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher got slammed for days. It's all the SAME THING.


Celebrities endorse political candidates. So what? Who gives a damn? This means nothing. It happens all the time. Widen your focus a little bit. The divide is getting worse, friends. A storm is approaching.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


From your post.....*
Yes the 80% was a figure I made up to
try to explain what I meant. *

It's really hard to take anything you say seriously, when you pull figures out of...ahhh...thin air. as if they are real.

Use those figures to bolster your position....and then admit you made them up....not real bright I would say.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I just realized today that I waffle almost daily about whether or not Paul would be good for this country overall. I read and search and still, every day, I wonder...


I think we all waffle, but for me, I always look to who I think might do a better job, and who is appropriate for the needs of the country at this moment in time.

At the end of Clinton's terms, I would not have thought Paul was necessarily the best fit for the nation. I still might have agreed with him in principle, but perhaps he was too severe at the time.

At this moment in time, after 8 years of Bush, and war and Patriot Acts, and after 4 years of Obama and entitlements, and debt-ceiling increases, and more war, and the NDAA........ at this moment in time, there is no other candidate that is even remotely more qualified for the needs of our country.

I think waffling is perfectly natural, and needed, because the country's needs change. Today, we need Ron Paul.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join