Do you think celebrities should stay out of politics?

[Alefnir]

I don't really think it's up to celebrities to stay out of politics, I think it's up to people not to listen to celebrities when they talk about politics.

[Valkrysa]

Do you think celebrities should stay out of politics?
No, they can speak their mind as much or as little as they want. It will effect my opinion of them though.

Do you think business should be involved with politics?
If they want to, but with the caveat that it must be transparent how they are effecting politics. No secret money.

Do you think churches should be tax exempt?
Don't care either way, I don't see a good reason for them to be tax exempt, but I also wouldn't put any effort into stopping them.

[Tijuana]

Careful Tijuana because I am Pro life and agree with you but right now you are backing yourself into a corner. Opinion is fine but unless you can quantify that abortion involves a person, I am afraid you will need some evidence to back that up.

It isn't that I disagree, but where are you going with that?

Well, a fetus, or even an embryo is constructed of DNA that is not the mother's. Denying the core point of abortion being controversial, is not an intelligent position to take. How anyone could be confused by this, is just wildly beyond me.

[Doctor Amadeus]

1. No, however, award shows or sporting events are not the time or place to shove their views down peoples throats (looking at you Streep and Kap) If they want to do political or social campaigns on their own time for whatever cause tickles their fancy that is great.

2. That is a complicated question, on one hand you dont want businesses (small or large) being able to decide elections but on the other hand businesses are usually the ones hardest hit by political decisions.

3. They should either be required to follow the same rules and regulations of every other non-profit organization or be taxed.

Yeah, I don't agree with the award show thing, can it be annoying sure, but I don't like the ideas of anybody putting conditions on how others feel, what they DO however that is different, and if they want to burn up whatever freedom and time they have to accept an award, then take a deep sigh if you disagree, and deal with it in my opinion.

Because unless they specifically go into attacks by way they harm the company that host, I don't see an issue.


The business thing I don't think is complicated, but I suppose that depends on if you believe business should act as a person.

I agree with you on taxing the church.

[Theinquisition]

The American public voted for a celebrity to the presidency...

That's a lot of people who should have heeded your advice.

Yeah, I don't disagree. It's a damn shame the republican party couldn't put up someone better.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Yeah, I don't disagree. It's a damn shame the republican party couldn't put up someone better.

Sadly, the Demos thought it would be a good plan to push the most hated woman in America instead of Sanders..... what can ya do...

[WintersLegion]

The problem isn't that celebrities need to stay out of politics it's that people need to stop assuming that because someone is well known they know what they are talking about and still do their own research.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Well, a fetus, or even an embryo is constructed of DNA that is not the mother's. Denying the core point of abortion being controversial, is not an intelligent position to take. How anyone could be confused by this, is just wildly beyond me.

Well I don't know that is true, and here is why. A fetus or an embryo is constructed of DNA that is the mothers, more specifically, it's being fed. Anyone who actually has qualifications in this specific area or has knowledge be free to correct me on that.

Nonetheless, I am still with you in spirit, but here is the crux and why I am Pro Life, and maybe YOU are not, I AM uncomfortable with some gaps of the unknown. I am extremely bothered by the prospect of being passive about murder. Full stop.

However as much as I have studied and done research on that is NOT happening, at least or up up to a certain point. I don't know it is a fixed amount of time, but I accept it's a range and that at the start of any possibility of what you said the cell that is growing into a child can be not only independent, but is self aware.

That isn't always the point either, the next factor in that is up until birth if a woman's life is in jeopardy, even if that development is a child, I see it in terms of the scenario of two people who have been blown overboard, and there is only one life preserver. So one of them has to die.

I wouldn't envy someone who has to fight for that preserver.


There are many unknowns, but as close to the science I follow there is no allowance to just start offing life willy nilly. I follow that because of what best it is we feel we know, which could be wrong, but I don't have any evidence outside of my own feelings and emotions beyond that.

I don't especially need to, and neither do you, but before calling people monsters I think it's prudent to pause, because if I am confused, and I don't believe I know everything, and I do miss sometimes, but I do my best to be as informed as I can be despite my bias.


I am pro life, and if you are pro choice, then the only thing I can conclude is that you simply have different knowledge than I do or you simply feel a different way, which doesn't make you especially wrong.

But based on the complexity of the issue and the variables, I just think calling people monsters just yet, is premature.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I don't disagree. It's a damn shame the republican party couldn't put up someone better.

They did Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Hell even Cruz none of them had violence at their rallies, none of them would have had people taken to the streets all of them had key core principles while I disagree with, I could have full confidence they weren't complete and total morons, nevermind their affiliations or being Nazi's or White Supremacist.

All of the GOP were more than qualified.

[oplawlz]

They have the right to their opinions, but shouldn't be allowed to use non-political platforms like award shows to voice those opinions. Being on a stage does not lend ones opinion any credence.
I feel the same about religious opinions. Thank Jesus on your own time, thank Mom on the stage.

[Tijuana]

Well I don't know that is true, and here is why. A fetus or an embryo is constructed of DNA that is the mothers, more specifically, it's being fed. Anyone who actually has qualifications in this specific area or has knowledge be free to correct me on that.

Nonetheless, I am still with you in spirit, but here is the crux and why I am Pro Life, and maybe YOU are not, I AM uncomfortable with some gaps of the unknown. I am extremely bothered by the prospect of being passive about murder. Full stop.

However as much as I have studied and done research on that is NOT happening, at least or up up to a certain point. I don't know it is a fixed amount of time, but I accept it's a range and that at the start of any possibility of what you said the cell that is growing into a child can be not only independent, but is self aware.

That isn't always the point either, the next factor in that is up until birth if a woman's life is in jeopardy, even if that development is a child, I see it in terms of the scenario of two people who have been blown overboard, and there is only one life preserver. So one of them has to die.

I wouldn't envy someone who has to fight for that preserver.


There are many unknowns, but as close to the science I follow there is no allowance to just start offing life willy nilly. I follow that because of what best it is we feel we know, which could be wrong, but I don't have any evidence outside of my own feelings and emotions beyond that.

I don't especially need to, and neither do you, but before calling people monsters I think it's prudent to pause, because if I am confused, and I don't believe I know everything, and I do miss sometimes, but I do my best to be as informed as I can be despite my bias.


I am pro life, and if you are pro choice, then the only thing I can conclude is that you simply have different knowledge than I do or you simply feel a different way, which doesn't make you especially wrong.

But based on the complexity of the issue and the variables, I just think calling people monsters just yet, is premature.

The DNA of a an embryo is factually not a match to the mother. You are denying science.

I am not pro-life, but my support of being pro-choice is razor thin. I support nearly all limits to it.

Essentially, I respect the fact that some really smart people disagree with me, and that disagreement is in good faith. While I personally find the practice to be disgusting, they do not. It is not my place to tell them how to feel about abortion. In essence, its a mens rea angle for me. They do not see what they do as immoral, therefore they are exempt from intent. While I still feel for the loss of life, I have not been given the decision, they have. Basically, I'm Joe Biden on abortion.

Having a different view on abortion from mine, doesn't make someone a bad person. Denying the entire existence of one side of that debate, factually makes someone a bad person, or just a moron.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The DNA of a an embryo is factually not a match to the mother. You are denying science.

Nope, You could be right, I am not confident about that, so I will concede without reason to doubt you.

I am not pro-life, but my support of being pro-choice is razor thin. I support nearly all limits to it.

Yeah HAHAHA ironically I don't know how but I am right there with you on that, Yeah, I am also in agreement where you are going, I am just saying for myself it's there is a lot of information this way and that way.

Essentially, I respect the fact that some really smart people disagree with me, and that disagreement is in good faith. While I personally find the practice to be disgusting, they do not. It is not my place to tell them how to feel about abortion. In essence, its a mens rea angle for me. They do not see what they do as immoral, therefore they are exempt from intent. While I still feel for the loss of life, I have not been given the decision, they have. Basically, I'm Joe Biden on abortion.

Having a different view on abortion from mine, doesn't make someone a bad person. Denying the entire existence of one side of that debate, factually makes someone a bad person, or just a moron.

Yeah on this I totally agree, because there are morons on both sides of the issue as there always are, shit, I am sure I am one of them from time to time, because I will admit there is so much I don't know.

I DO respect where people are on the issue, I really do, provided they are sincere and not hypocrites. I think the difficulty is to be consistent but also being fair. I don't have to like something or someone to agree to it.

I just need either good reason or logic to process. I am going mostly with what the science is I try not to be a coward with that.

If the Science really does come back a way I am uncomfortable with, I could see myself being moved one way or another. Just so much I can say I don't know but still trying to figure out.

I TRY to assume the same and give others the benefit of the doubt until i double check. Provided that my BS detector isn't going off the needle.


I also understand people that have a bias too, but on something like this, I can't have that luxury, because yeah I do actually give a shit.

[Xar226]

1. No, they have a right to speak. I do wish they weren't given megaphones when they don't know more about an issue than an average Joe though. Sometimes celebrities do adopt pet causes and become legitimate experts about it, but it's much more common for them to get attention based on their fame alone while the side with the celebrity trots them out and the other side screams "CELEBRITIES SHOULD STAY OUT OF POLITICS!!!1!!one!" until it's their turn to trot one out.

2. Do I think they should able to, for example, run issue ads about pending legislation or endorse candidates? No, though the Supreme Court disagrees with me on that one. Do I think they should be able to take stands with regard to their own business? Yes. Brands matter and the companies should get to define what that brand means and who it associates itself with, within the confines of the law.

3. Yes, under the current rules, but I also don't believe we police those rules nearly enough. Alternately I could be open to the notion of taxing them but providing a 100% deduction for any charitable work -- that is, as long as they're using the money for the things we're allowing them to be tax exempt to promote in the first place it continues to be the case, but the more money spent straying from those things the more they pay. I'd need to see the details of a specific proposal on that first though, what the implications would be and how well we could define it. Otherwise the status quo is fine with me here.

[Tijuana]

Nope, You could be right, I am not confident about that, so I will concede without reason to doubt you.



Yeah HAHAHA ironically I don't know how but I am right there with you on that, Yeah, I am also in agreement where you are going, I am just saying for myself it's there is a lot of information this way and that way.



Yeah on this I totally agree, because there are morons on both sides of the issue as there always are, shit, I am sure I am one of them from time to time, because I will admit there is so much I don't know.

I DO respect where people are on the issue, I really do, provided they are sincere and not hypocrites. I think the difficulty is to be consistent but also being fair. I don't have to like something or someone to agree to it.

I just need either good reason or logic to process. I am going mostly with what the science is I try not to be a coward with that.

If the Science really does come back a way I am uncomfortable with, I could see myself being moved one way or another. Just so much I can say I don't know but still trying to figure out.

I TRY to assume the same and give others the benefit of the doubt until i double check. Provided that my BS detector isn't going off the needle.


I also understand people that have a bias too, but on something like this, I can't have that luxury, because yeah I do actually give a shit.

You don't need to know anything about science, to know that a fetuses DNA is it's own. All you have to know, is that DNA is the blueprint by which life is formed, and you will understand that each human would have needed to have their own blueprint, prior to being formed. This isn't high science, it's common sense. Just sayin...

The rest I think we are in agreement.

[Sunseeker]

Close the thread guys, it was over after this.

I don't even see why there's a discussion.

Celebrities are people? People have the right to participate in the political process? Gimme a "check" on this.
Corporations aren't people? (Fuck citizens united). Not-people don't have a right to participate in the political process? Gimme a "check" on this.
Religion and religious organiations teach people what things to value and what not to value with impacts people's political stances? Yep.

Why we Americans struggle with such simple philosophical questions to this day greatly disappoints me. It does not surprise me, it just makes me sad.

[PACOX]

No - celebrities have the right to involve themselves in politics, just like anyone else.

Yes - if businesses have to pay taxes and adhere to government regulations then they have a voice in politics.

Yes - churches should be tax exempt as long as they are non-profit. Lots of churches don't make any money, their full time staff has to work multiple jobs are live off the donations of church members, and a lot of their money goes back to services within their community.

[PACOX]

My biggest wish is that celebrities would do all their research before making statements. The silliness that comes out of some of their mouths at times is insane.

Thats really no different than most people.

[Deleted]

Even celebrities have the right to express their views just like anyone else. Same applies to business people. And the rest of us have the right to not to take their opinions seriously.

And all religious organizations should pay taxes just like everyone else.

[Kaleredar]

And all religious organizations should pay taxes just like everyone else.

So non-profit organizations should have to pay taxes?

[Sama-81]

Of course celebrities can get involved in politics if they so wish. The problem lies with people thinking that celebrities somehow know better about things outside of their own portfolios than the rest of the population. I would bet that actors and musicians for instance, however famous, likely knows less than the general public about politics. If people care what George Clooney or whoever thinks about politics, the fault lies with them, no where else. Well, with media as well of course, but other than that.

[TheDestinatus]

The American public voted for a celebrity to the presidency...

That's a lot of people who should have heeded your advice.

Everyone knows the name of the people running for president thus making them all "celebrity" or "famous", so unless you're suggesting we have blind ballots and no one is allowed to have a name or image associated with them than you are disqualifying every politician of any flavour ever.