George Clooney - The Trump of the Left

[NeederNodder]

George Clooney is the perfect candidate to be the "Trump" of the Left.

Clooney can easily merge the Clinton and Sanders factions of the Democratic Party. Although he supported Clinton in the Election and gave her big donations, He's called campaign finance obscene. Plus he'd be 59 on election day as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-clinton-fundraiser-obscene-money

[LLR]

I don't think trying to beat Trump with another rich actor is such a good idea. We need to combat him with experience, if this government fails as it may.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I don't think trying to beat Trump with another rich actor is such a good idea. We need to combat him with experience, if this government fails as it may.

-I remember how well that worked last year. Try it again!

[justfollowingtheelections]

George Clooney is the perfect candidate to be the "Trump" of the Left.

Clooney can easily merge the Clinton and Sanders factions of the Democratic Party. Although he supported Clinton in the Election and gave her big donations, He's called campaign finance obscene. Plus he'd be 59 on election day as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-clinton-fundraiser-obscene-money

Clooney wouldn't be able to do that.  He's an effing hypocrite.  If you want a celebrity that can win over Berniecrats, give me Michael Stipe or Mark Ruffalo, not morons like Clooney or Katy Perry.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't think trying to beat Trump with another rich actor is such a good idea. We need to combat him with experience, if this government fails as it may.

Oh really, last I recall, Obama was pretty much inexperienced when he beat McCain...or how about Bill vs Bush Sr...pretty obvious who was more experienced...oh and Jimmy vs Ford.

Last time an "experienced" or "old" Democrat actually won, well that Democrat literally had the legacy of another inexperienced hearthrob to ride on.

Oh, but there are others. Truman was plenty experienced over Dewey...barely won that and most people counted him out...narrowest win besides Jimmy.

FDR wasn't as experienced as Hoover...or maybe he was depending on how you look at it, but he was certainly not what you'd expect...oops.

Then there's Wilson, easily the least experienced compared to Teddy or Taft or even Hughes...oops.

Cleveland was a two year governor before defeating Blaine and that and a termer against a Congresscritter AND President in Harrison.

So basically, besides Truman and LBJ, every post-Civil War Democrat that won was arguably less experienced than the Republican.

Think about that a moment....

[Shadows]

How stupid can these threads get?

[Phony Moderate]

I don't think trying to beat Trump with another rich actor is such a good idea. We need to combat him with experience, if this government fails as it may.

Oh really, last I recall, Obama was pretty much inexperienced when he beat McCain...or how about Bill vs Bush Sr...pretty obvious who was more experienced...oh and Jimmy vs Ford.

Last time an "experienced" or "old" Democrat actually won, well that Democrat literally had the legacy of another inexperienced hearthrob to ride on.

Oh, but there are others. Truman was plenty experienced over Dewey...barely won that and most people counted him out...narrowest win besides Jimmy.

FDR wasn't as experienced as Hoover...or maybe he was depending on how you look at it, but he was certainly not what you'd expect...oops.

Then there's Wilson, easily the least experienced compared to Teddy or Taft or even Hughes...oops.

Cleveland was a two year governor before defeating Blaine and that and a termer against a Congresscritter AND President in Harrison.

So basically, besides Truman and LBJ, every post-Civil War Democrat that won was arguably less experienced than the Republican.

Think about that a moment....

In comparison to George Clooney, all of the examples you mention are basically John Quincy Adams in experience terms.

[mencken]

[NeederNodder]

I don't think trying to beat Trump with another rich actor is such a good idea. We need to combat him with experience, if this government fails as it may.

Oh really, last I recall, Obama was pretty much inexperienced when he beat McCain...or how about Bill vs Bush Sr...pretty obvious who was more experienced...oh and Jimmy vs Ford.

Last time an "experienced" or "old" Democrat actually won, well that Democrat literally had the legacy of another inexperienced hearthrob to ride on.

Oh, but there are others. Truman was plenty experienced over Dewey...barely won that and most people counted him out...narrowest win besides Jimmy.

FDR wasn't as experienced as Hoover...or maybe he was depending on how you look at it, but he was certainly not what you'd expect...oops.

Then there's Wilson, easily the least experienced compared to Teddy or Taft or even Hughes...oops.

Cleveland was a two year governor before defeating Blaine and that and a termer against a Congresscritter AND President in Harrison.

So basically, besides Truman and LBJ, every post-Civil War Democrat that won was arguably less experienced than the Republican.

Think about that a moment....

In comparison to George Clooney, all of the examples you mention are basically John Quincy Adams in experience terms.

Clooney was considered as a contender for Senate in California and bookmakers doubled his chances after marrying his wife, who is a prominent human rights lawyer and activist. He clearly doesn't need experience after this election.

[MarkD]

One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.

[Maxwell]

can we not have the most overrated actor in hollywood run for president?

[NeederNodder]

How exactly is George Clooney qualified to be President?  I mean, at least Trump ran a business.  Clooney is practically as unfit to be President as Little Marco Rubio.

He soon may be qualified because in interviews, he's talked about retiring from acting. Perhaps a career in politics?

http://www.ibtimes.com/george-clooney-retiring-actor-opens-about-aging-front-cameras-2329698

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Smith]

How exactly is George Clooney qualified to be President?  I mean, at least Trump ran a business.  Clooney is practically as unfit to be President as Little Marco Rubio.

Business isn't politics, nor is the military, nor is science. Politics is politics.

Really, it's rather telling how afraid the DNC is of trying a hand at a complete newcomer...the last true newcomer was Winfield Hancock for crying out loud.

Contrast the RNC which have allowed Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Wendell Willkie, and now Mr. Trump.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.

Is there anything you care about that isn't SCOTUS appointees?

[Vega]

Richard Gere would be a better choice if we're picking handsome older actors.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

#Analysis much?

[Intell]

No.

[Inmate Trump]

Just think of all the housewives who would rush to the polls to cast their vote for him.

[MarkD]

One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.

Is there anything you care about that isn't SCOTUS appointees?

In presidential politics, no.
In legislative politics, I want to see a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
They're related, of course. The SCOTUS renders more erroneous decisions about the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th than anything else in the Constitution,  IMO, and I decided there needs to be a a two-front battle for how to improve the Court's interpretation of them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.

Is there anything you care about that isn't SCOTUS appointees?

In presidential politics, no.
In legislative politics, I want to see a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
They're related, of course. The SCOTUS renders more erroneous decisions about the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th than anything else in the Constitution,  IMO, and I decided there needs to be a a two-front battle for how to improve the Court's interpretation of them.

So you genuinely don't care about anything but SCOTUS appointees and rewriting an amendment in a way that probably takes away peoples rights? Why are you on this site?

[MarkD]

One way Clooney is just like Clinton is that he wants Supreme Court Justices who will be dedicated to overturning Citizens United v. FEC. That is a reason why I refuse to support him just like I refused to support Clinton. If you want badly to overturn a Supreme Court precedent, propose a constitutional amendment, but don't appoint anyone to the Court based on a one-issue litmus test.

Is there anything you care about that isn't SCOTUS appointees?

In presidential politics, no.
In legislative politics, I want to see a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
They're related, of course. The SCOTUS renders more erroneous decisions about the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th than anything else in the Constitution,  IMO, and I decided there needs to be a a two-front battle for how to improve the Court's interpretation of them.

So you genuinely don't care about anything but SCOTUS appointees and rewriting an amendment in a way that probably takes away peoples rights? Why are you on this site?

I care about those issues much more than anything else.
You assume that my idea for rewriting the 14th Amendment will "takes away people's rights." Most of the "rights" I want to "take away" from people are the "rights" that came from the Supreme Court Justices, not from the intended meaning of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th. I want to "take away" from the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) the power to define the rights of the people. The Court has said, twice, that they have an "obligation ... to define the liberty of all," and I want to tell the Justices: Oh no, you don't! You never had that obligation; there never was anything, in the Constitution, that obligated you, the judicial branch, to define how much freedom people deserve to have! Your obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not expand them! I want to tell the judiciary - and the whole country - that the Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not the states (as our Founding Fathers originally intended). The rights that states are obligated to respect and to not violate are ones which will be enumerated in the proposal I envision, and the kinds of discrimination that any level of government are not allowed to engage in will also be enumerated in the proposal.

A little over 3 years ago I drafted a long and detailed proposal, and I tried to make it ideologically balanced - a compromise; a collection of ideas not all of which will make conservatives completely happy nor liberals, but both sides can find some things in it to root for. The last section of it denounces the Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, and tells the courts to never make a mistake like that ever again, which is something very important to me and will be one of the things liberals can root for.

I am proposing to take away from the Supreme Court a huge chunk of the power to "legislate from the bench," and return that power back to legislatures where it belongs. Once that is accomplished, then the various other issues that I have opinions about -- abortion, gay equality, gun ownership, this, that and another economic issue, national security -- will be things I'll spend more time conversing about.

Finally, I'm on the site because sites like this are where people will discuss Supreme Court appointments, and ideas for amendments to the U.S. Constitution. I have not posted exclusively about the two issues most important to me.

[White Trash]

The only Democratic celebrity I'd consider voting for is Springsteen.

[LLR]

The only Democratic celebrity I'd consider voting for is Springsteen.

#DraftSpringsteen2020