Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Romney Supporters Rejoice! YOU GOT LINDSAY LOHAN!

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
If I were a Mitt supporter, this single fact would make me consider jumping ship!



Lindsay Lohan never ceases to amaze. But on Thursday night, she did so not because she got her third DUI or had another fight with her mother – she announced she will be voting for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Why? "I just think employment is really important right now," the actress, who often finds herself without work, explained on the pink carpet at the Mr. Pink’s Ginseng Drink event in L.A...

Three days earlier, the 26-year-old tweeted that the public would soon “hear my thoughts on our next president” – as if we had been eagerly awaiting it. In early September, after the first presidential debate, Lohan went on a Twitter rampage, during which she tweeted none other than Barack Obama asking him to consider tax breaks “for those that are listed on Forbes as 'millionaires' if they are not,” although it’s unclear what she exactly meant by that (she later deleted the comment).

Source

Sometimes reality is just too funny and ironic to be true. Could this be the kiss of death for the GOP? Will they scramble to distance themselves on the Sunday Morning circuit?

Could Lindsay be a secret Democratic genius who's figured out that her endorsement is poison - and is thus deliberately associating herself with the person she wants to lose?

I can't stop laughing - and I can truly see Mitt ( or any politician for that matter ) saying "SHE DID WHAT?" and then spending a night or two doing some serious soul searching. To have something in common with Lindsay Lohan... must be a profoundly introspective and shuddering moment.


~Heff

edit on 10/13/12 by Hefficide because: typo




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Dear Hefficide,

I thought we were doing so well with the Independents, sigh. That'll cost a couple of points, and lets Crazy Uncle Joe Biden off the hook. The only thing that comes to mind (besides the foul-mouthed rappers signing up for Obama) is Billy Carter, Jimmy's brother. Remember "Billy Beer?"

Oh, this may be being discussed in another thread www.abovetopsecret.com... (Actually, I'm a little ashamed I posted that link.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   


“So, as of now, Mitt Romney. As of now.” So does that mean her vote could change come election day?


Whew.....it's not an official endorsement, she's reserving the right to change her "mind".

Hey isn't she a felon? Is she even allowed to vote?

Either way it's pretty funny I just can't quite figure out why everybody is so fascinated with this girl.

One last thing. All you young guys take a good look at her. If you see a girl that looks like that the next time you go clubbing or whatever you youngsters call it just run the other way and run fast because that is one nasty, gross, piece of.....



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Good God, this thread is turning out like Lindsays career...... < chirps >

I must be twisted because I laughed for at least fifteen minutes after reading this news.


She endorsed YOUR candidate Republicans... and look how well her name's worked for this thread!




~Heff



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Dear Hefficide,

I shouldn't have allowed myself to be swayed by your clever language, rather, I should have thought it out for myself, as the author of this article did: www.businessinsider.com... Some brief excerpts:


Lindsay Lohan came out in support of Mitt Romney yesterday.

While most would, at first glance, write this off as gossip, it's the latest instance of an evolving trend that jeopardizes President Obama's chance at winning the White House.

Lohan, by all accounts, is a typical low-information voter. And low information voters, like it or not, will decide this election.

The first person to pick out this trend was Dave Weigel at Slate after sportswriter Buzz Bissinger endorsed Romney after his positive debate performance. Bissinger, Weigel notes, was a low information voter. He ignored the election, watched the debate, took everyone's word for it on the facts, and backed Romney.

But Bissinger is emblematic of millions of Americans. These people don't follow politics, don't understand the issues with depth, and plan to vote based on what little information they've gleaned.

Lohan is a low information voter convinced that (a) employment is really important, (b) thinks that employment is not being sufficiently handled by the White House right now and (c) thinks that Mitt Romney is better equipped to handle employment.

That arguably logical sequence is all that it takes for a low-information voter to support Mitt Romney. The thing is, there are millions of voters like her. That should terrify the Obama campaign.


So, maybe I should go out and buy Lohan a drink to thank her?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Touche'. good Sir!

We will have to wait and see if the quoted experts are correct in their demographic assumptions. With current media saturation rates, I am not sure that low information voters will be as pivotal as the overly or partially (mis)informed will be.

Both sides have hurdles to cross...

For the Democrats it is that the same wave of a desire for change, which swept them into the office, might well sweep them back out again.

For the Republicans it is that a sizable slice of the voting "pie" will be from people who no longer trust the ways of the establishment, Wall Street, regarding the trickle down model.

In this Kingdom, which demographic will turn out to be the proverbial one eyed man? I honestly cannot say. I do, however, worry deeply that we've come to a point where the fate of this nation, and by way of that, much of the world, weighs in the balance of under-informed versus the misinformed and proselytized.

Strange days we live in.

In closing, as a friend, I'd strongly discourage you from buying Ms Lohan that drink. She has a reputation you know.


~Heff



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Dear Hefficide,

Well, it seems that you've brought me to the door of another graduate-level seminar and shoved me through. I hadn't really considered "Low information voters (LIVs)" before. But this plays right to your strength, doesn't it? Social engineering, neural network cues, etc. I wish I knew the things you do. Oh well, just another case of knowledge envy.

In case anybody is just reading through, let me post a few snippets from interesting articles.


American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry as elitist for saying wind-surfing was his favorite sport.

Low-information voters are disproportionately white and working-class. Their views are more moderate than those of high-information voters, they are less likely to vote, and are looking for a candidate they find personally appealing. They tend to be swing voters, and they tend to vote split-ticket more than well-informed voters do, researchers say because they lack a coherent ideology.

A 2012 paper by six American political scientists called "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" challenged the idea that Republicans want a low-information electorate, and argued instead that both major American parties do. Noting that 95% of incumbents in the highly polarized House of Representatives win re-election despite voters' preference for centrist representation, the paper theorizes that voters' infrequent penalizing of extremist behaviour represents not approval, but a lack of attention and information.

en.wikipedia.org...
Foreign Policy published an article which takes a slightly more partisan approach: www.foreignpolicy.com...

I have seen two attitudes toward LIVs. The first is that they are reclaimable, if only somebody -- the president, the Democrats, the media -- can get the right information to them. The second attitude is a hand-wringing sense of cynical hopelessness on the part of liberals who see LIVs as having an inherent character flaw. In their minds, LIVs are either too lazy to seek out relevant information, too dumb to act in a way that would maximize their own interests, too apathetic or selfish to care about what's best for their fellow citizens, or simply brainwashed automatons who vote the way they're told.

Yet liberals believe that if conservative voters only had more information, they would recognize liberal values as objective and universal -- they would turn off Fox News and unite to end global warming, support universal health care, back unions and women's rights, and so on. Obviously, they don't. And this means to liberals that conservative populists have character flaws that lead them to become low-information voters who screw things up for everyone.

Third, they need to understand how brains work: If the facts don't fit morally based frame-circuits, it's the frame-circuits that stay and the facts that go out the _ All political parties should aim to communicate facts, but to do so successfully they have to take into account voters' moral systems that constrain party values. Those moral-system differences are among the facts that need to be discussed.


There are dozens of questions I haven't found answers to. Why don't LIVs have an interest in politics? Is it ability to comprehend and analyze? Perhaps a sense of the corruption of politics from which they want to stay far away? Do they have a sense it doesn't matter, since all candidates are the same?

How many LIV's are there? Five per cent? Sixty per cent? Voter turnout has been under 2/3 since 1900 and as low as 49% in 1996. How many of those had even a clue about the issues? en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps we should go back to electing people of integrity from our own state, then let them choose the President.

Anyway, Hefficide, nobody on this site makes me work the way you do, and I'll always be grateful to you for it.

(And how am I going to get a reputation as a "wild man" rock star if I don't buy her a drink.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




Lohan, by all accounts, is a typical low-information voter. And low information voters, like it or not, will decide this election.
Wow charles1952, things are really bad. This may not be very nice to say but is LIV = Idiot? Because that is how I interpret the description of this voter category. The nation is heading for burn out. Soon we may have elections as per Soviet Union, one candidate so as to "simplify the voting process"


Heff, I am having to reevaluate Joe McCarthy. Why? Because I think he was right but it was the "labeling" that the LIV could not understand. The HIV could not bring themselves to think "Things are not as I "IMAGINED" ". Knowing and imagining is the issue.

PS: I came here through the "How "The Powers That Be" get presidents to cooperate?" thread



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tintin2012
 

Dear tintin2012,

Hi, again.

Wow charles1952, things are really bad. This may not be very nice to say but is LIV = Idiot? Because that is how I interpret the description of this voter category. The nation is heading for burn out. Soon we may have elections as per Soviet Union, one candidate so as to "simplify the voting process"
There's a lot to be said for your interpretation, especially if you stretch the definition of "idiot." Some LIVs are morons, of course. If the median IQ is 100, then a full half of the population is below that. Some really can't make sense of political issues.

Then there are those who just don't care about the elections. They go to work, come home, kiss their wives, have a beer, watch the football game, do some chores around the house, and go to bed. The elections don't matter to them.

Then there are those who intentionally shut out politics, seeing it as completely dishonest, slimy, and unpleasant. They might just ask their neighbor who they're voting for, and that would be the limit of their research. Some might catch the President on television talking about his wife's arugula recipe and think that he seems like a good guy.

As I say, it depends on what "idiot" means.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Don't feel bad, Heff.

You guys still have Honey Boo-Boo.

edit on 23-10-2012 by beezzer because: this edit was brought to you by the letter B



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Honey Boo Boo Endorses Obama.

Standoff.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.






top topics



 
1

log in

join