Hollywood’s latest anti-Second Amendment movie has historically horrible opening weekend

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what is the issue?
Oh, come on now. You're being intentionally obtuse. Every review I have read recognizes the political aspects and intent of the movie.

The New York Times alludes to the policy kick-starter aspect of the movie:
"The filmmakers acknowledge that their project plays very differently than it would have had Hillary Clinton defeated Mr. Trump."

It's barely a gun control movie

Lifezette: "The Blatant Gun Control Agenda of ‘Miss Sloane’"

The New York Times again: "In the movie, Elizabeth Sloane is a ruthless conservative lobbyist who takes on the National Rifle Association and tries to get gun-control legislation passed."

We are right to discuss it, and celebrate its financial failure.
 
But Communism isn't a group that promotes hate against portions of the US population based on religion or race, and neither the Democrats or Republicans would have quietly allowed their parties to be associated with hate groups in a national race for 50 years.
Apparently you've missed [like so many other things] the entire history of Marxism-Leninism.

Marxist-Leninists promote not just hate, but mass murder of anyone not fawningly servile toward them and the "party line". That generally includes, but is not limited to:
  • those of ANY religion
  • ethnic minorities who wish to express an identity apart from that of the ruling party
  • homosexuals
  • those expressing ANY non-communist political sentiment
  • those expressing insufficiently fervent adoration of the party leadership and the "party line" du jour
From your bizarre claim above, it's obvious that the spirit of Walter Duranty lives on.
 
Your duplicitousness renders you utterly without credibility.
You realize that this is false?
He won because more African Americans, Latinos, and women voted for him than voted for Romney. Those are facts,
The fact is that African Americans voted in similar numbers for Romney and Trump, but since fewer African Americans voted in 2016, the percentage of the total vote went from 6 to 8 percent. And latinos most definitely voted in greater numbers against Trump than Romney.
 
Oh, come on now. You're being intentionally obtuse. Every review I have read recognizes the political aspects and intent of the movie.

The New York Times alludes to the policy kick-starter aspect of the movie:
"The filmmakers acknowledge that their project plays very differently than it would have had Hillary Clinton defeated Mr. Trump."



Lifezette: "The Blatant Gun Control Agenda of ‘Miss Sloane’"

The New York Times again: "In the movie, Elizabeth Sloane is a ruthless conservative lobbyist who takes on the National Rifle Association and tries to get gun-control legislation passed."

We are right to discuss it, and celebrate its financial failure.
It is a gun control movie like Erin Brokovitch is a movie about Chromium 3. Whatever the intent of the film was, the actual film has less to say about guns and gun control as it does about how Washington functions. It is a lot like Thank You for Smoking, just not funny.

Bowling for Columbine in a gun control film, because it talks directly about the negative effects of guns, rather than the underhanded nature of the NRA and the underhanded nature of the lobbyists that oppose the NRA.


None of which suggests there is an "issue" that needs to be acted on. The movie isn't doing well, the anti-gun message is diluted and secondary to the story and the main character (who's the only reason the film gets good reviews) doesn't appear to care about gun control.

It is very much like worrying about whether Full Metal Jacket is anti-war. I don't think it is, but even if you want to read it that way, what actual impact does it have in our society? Zero. Soldiers getting killed in Vietnam had no impact on our interest in punishing Iraq for the actions of Saudis living in Afghanistan.

Miss Sloane, at the least, just reminds everyone how corrupt and broken our system is, and it stands on the shoulders of films like The Big Short in showing how screwed up everything is in the way we are governed.
 
And Defiance isn't a movie about the Holocaust and resistance to it. It's really a movie about fraternal relationships in Belarus...
Have you seen it? It is about Jews fighting the Germans in WWII in cooperation with the Communists. It is a true story about brave people. Writing it off as a "holocaust movie" rather misses the point and takes away from their achievements. The film doesn't do anything to illustrate the horrors of the Holocaust as much as provide a counter example to the victimization that befell most of Europes Jews.

Every film doesn't have to be boiled down to its single most political element. Weinstein may have tried to "take on the NRA", but he failed since the movie is barely about that, and isn't really about gun control at all.
 
You realize that this is false?

I think more and more are seeing it as true.

The fact is that African Americans voted in similar numbers for Romney and Trump, but since fewer African Americans voted in 2016, the percentage of the total vote went from 6 to 8 percent. And latinos most definitely voted in greater numbers against Trump than Romney.

That's a bit ... ummm....misleading, if not a blatant reinterpretation of the facts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

The 8% and 6% reference is with-in the group; not as compared to the 'total vote' as you slyly slipped in.

And while more Hispanics voted against Trump than Romney, Trump was able to gather a greater % of the Hispanic vote than Romney did. IOW, there was a greater # of Hispanics that swung to Trump than the increase that voted against him.

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.



You should really provide evidence when you claim things as 'facts'.
 
Last edited:
I think more and more are seeing it as true.



That's a bit ... ummm....misleading, if not a blatant reinterpretation of the facts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

It went from 8% to 6% with-in the group; not as compared to the 'total vote' as you slyly slipped in.
Total number of black voters, not total vote. You are presenting percentages, and a greater percentage of the black vote went to Trump than Romney. But the total number of individual votes remained about the same. 6% of 100 is 6 votes. 8% of 75 is also 6 votes. The total votes for the GOP candidates where the same, just the percentage changed because the large number of blacks that didn't vote were Democrats.

And there are a number of reasons that black Democrats didn't come out in as great numbers for Hillary as Barack (including anti-poor voter laws), but that lack of turn-out does not mean that small number of black GOP voters changed, or that voter turn-out causes were the same for all African American groups.

Beware falling for the percentage trap. It is used all the time to talk about taxation and other issues, but it is easy to fool yourself with it.
 
Have you seen it?
Have you?

The Holocaust and the attempts to implement it by both the Germans and their puppet auxiliaries are the driving forces of the film.

The Bielski brothers weren't fighting global warming.

Oh, and before I forget, it quite accurately shows the attitudes of non-Jewish communists toward the lives of Jews. This of course would culminate in Stalin's casual attitude toward the crushing of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Needless to say, no one should be at all surprised by your failure to note this. But then Walter Duranty failed to not quite a lot as well...
 
Have you?

The Holocaust and the attempts to implement it by both the Germans and their puppet auxiliaries are the driving forces of the film.

The Bielski brothers weren't fighting global warming.
They also lived in the woods, but that doesn't mean it is a film about camping. Nor is Alive about cannibalism, Raiders about archeology or 127 Hours about ad hoc medical procedures. Off camera character motivations are not what a film is "about". The film is about what you're seeing the characters do, not the world history prior to the action.

The gun lobby is the convenient boogeyman used in Miss Sloane, but any viewer understands that the action comes from the conflict between corporations, lobbyists and government. The film could have been about oil companies and the dialogue and events would be 98% identical.

Why does it matter? Because the concern with any sort of propaganda is its effect on the undecided people. Pro and anti gun people are not going to get anything out of this film but more confirmation bias. People in the middle aren't going to form any new opinions about guns and their rights, they will just think they are better informed about what really happens when Congress votes on an "issue". The NRA might look like a bad guys, but the NRA itself has been doing a great job of looking like idiots for decades.
 
Total number of black voters, not total vote. You are presenting percentages, and a greater percentage of the black vote went to Trump than Romney. But the total number of individual votes remained about the same. 6% of 100 is 6 votes. 8% of 75 is also 6 votes. The total votes for the GOP candidates where the same, just the percentage changed because the large number of blacks that didn't vote were Democrats.

And there are a number of reasons that black Democrats didn't come out in as great numbers for Hillary as Barack (including anti-poor voter laws), but that lack of turn-out does not mean that small number of black GOP voters changed, or that voter turn-out causes were the same for all African American groups.

Beware falling for the percentage trap. It is used all the time to talk about taxation and other issues, but it is easy to fool yourself with it.


1st, If youre going to claim them as facts, cite your sources.

You said 'total vote' and not 'Total number of black voters; as you are now. The rest of your sentence also backs up that you were talking about total votes.

You should be beware of ignoring percentages as they are derived from the raw numbers and are sometimes more meaningful than the raw #'s.

This is shown by the fact that Clinton received a larger raw # of votes and still lost because the %'s of the raw # of votes wasn't distributed to where it mattered most.
 
1st, If youre going to claim them as facts, cite your sources.

You said 'total vote' and not 'Total number of black voters; as you are now. The rest of your sentence also backs up that you were talking about total votes.

You should be beware of ignoring percentages as they are derived from the raw numbers and are sometimes more meaningful than the raw #'s.

This is shown by the fact that Clinton received a larger raw # of votes and still lost because the %'s of the raw # of votes wasn't distributed to where it mattered most.
If you want to quibble about what I meant and you understood about "total vote" - whatever. I was always speaking of total African American voter turnout, and I apologize if that wasn't clear enough from context.

Here's a source:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/voter-turnout-2016-elections/

Percentages are useful for lots of things, but if you ask a question like "how do African Americans vote", looking at percentages will fool you into thinking that a race of people all act the same way, and they do not. If 1,000,000 black voters switched their vote from Dem to Rep between 2012 and 2016, then we could talk about those 1,000,000 people. But that didn't happen. We know fewer African Americans voted, and the biggest impact was on lower income, Dem voters.

That has little to do with how the electoral college system allows popular losers to win elections. That's a simple function of the fact that all the votes above the number required to win a state don't count for anything. CA could vote 100% for Clinton, and the number of electoral votes wouldn't change at all. Nor will it change if there is lower voter turn out, since electoral votes come from population, not voter numbers.

Speaking of Romney, he won 47.2% in 2012 with a voter turn out of 54.8%. Trump won nearly the same 47.23% on a turn out of 55%. Trump really didn't any more votes than Romney did, percentage or total.
 
Last edited:
They also lived in the woods, but that doesn't mean it is a film about camping.
WHY were they "living in the woods"? Decepticons? Godzilla?

The NRA might look like a bad guys, but the NRA itself has been doing a great job of looking like idiots for decades.
That's a popular opinion with anti-gun cultists.

You seem to share a lot of opinions with Chuck Schumer, et al...
 
WHY were they "living in the woods"? Decepticons? Godzilla?
Because Hitler rose to power following the Treaty of Versailles and the economic hardships inflicted on German citizens. So was Defiance really about the Treaty of Versailles?
That's a popular opinion with anti-gun cultists.

You seem to share a lot of opinions with Chuck Schumer, et al...

An organization that pens law enforcement as "jack booted thugs" in defense of a cult group led by a pedophile, and then keeps doing it until the Republican President publicly tears up his lifetime membership is out of touch.


Ad hominem attacks are a popular tactic among people who can't make a real point about anything.
 

Did you read your source?

I ask because it points to the PEW Research source I referenced and doesn't support your (false) claim of:

The fact is that African Americans voted in similar numbers for Romney and Trump, but since fewer African Americans voted in 2016, the percentage of the total vote went from 6 to 8 percent.


You should also be careful of liberal biased media as they are known to slant the numbers. Instead, just go to the source of the data as I did. Hopefully, you wont be as easily fooled.
 
Because Hitler rose to power following the Treaty of Versailles and the economic hardships inflicted on German citizens. So was Defiance really about the Treaty of Versailles?
So then hundreds or Belorussian Jews fled their homes in protest of the Treaty of Versaille?

An organization that pens law enforcement as "jack booted thugs" in defense of a cult group led by a pedophile, and then keeps doing it until the Republican President publicly tears up his lifetime membership is out of touch.
Yeah, I'd never call a group of people who posted "n***** hunting licenses in Federal offices, ran a Whites only "social event" where such items were freely traded, shot a woman holding a baby, or who burned to death a bunch of Black people, "jackbooted thugs"...

Of course I tend to be intolerant of "jackbooted thugs". Just the other day somebody told me that my view of the SS men who committed the Malmedy and Oradour sur Glaine massacres was "flawed"...

Ad hominem attacks are a popular tactic among people who can't make a real point about anything.
Disengenuous evasions are a popular tactic with the fifth columnists of the anti-gun cult.
 
Did you read your source?

I ask because it points to the PEW Research source I referenced and doesn't support your (false) claim of:




You should also be careful of liberal biased media as they are known to slant the numbers. Instead, just go to the source of the data as I did. Hopefully, you wont be as easily fooled.
I have to assume that you didn't read the Pew article, because the Pew article is written completely in percentages. I don't disagree with the Pew article, I disagree those that say that a change in relative percent is the same as a change in actual number of counted votes. The Pew article doesn't talk about that, which is why I have no argument with it.
 
So then hundreds or Belorussian Jews fled their homes in protest of the Treaty of Versaille?
Nope. It is just another way to distort the theme of film into something it is not, as you did by making Defiance into a "Holocaust film".

Yeah, I'd never call a group of people who posted "n***** hunting licenses in Federal offices, ran a Whites only "social event" where such items were freely traded, shot a woman holding a baby, or who burned to death a bunch of Black people, "jackbooted thugs"...

Of course I tend to be intolerant of "jackbooted thugs". Just the other day somebody told me that my view of the SS men who committed the Malmedy and Oradour sur Glaine massacres was "flawed"...
Are you talking about the FBI or the ATF? That's who the NRA labeled "jack booted thugs".
 
I have to assume that you didn't read the Pew article, because the Pew article is written completely in percentages. I don't disagree with the Pew article, I disagree those that say that a change in relative percent is the same as a change in actual number of counted votes. The Pew article doesn't talk about that, which is why I have no argument with it.

Then you assume wrong. I did read it.

Conversely, its apparent that you didn't read your source because it doesn't support your false claim.


You can certainly disagree with people that say "that a change in relative percent is the same as a change in actual number of counted votes"; I probably would too.

But the problem with claiming that now is that no one has made that claimed for you to disagree with.


Its just you tossing up misleading diversions in effort to pivot to something else to argue about (as its been noted in several recent threads) and hoping that something sticks.
 
Then you assume wrong. I did read it.

Conversely, its apparent that you didn't read your source because it doesn't support your false claim.


You can certainly disagree with people that say "that a change in relative percent is the same as a change in actual number of counted votes"; I probably would too.

But the problem with claiming that now is that no one has made that claimed for you to disagree with.


Its just you tossing up misleading diversions in effort to pivot to something else to argue about (as its been noted in several recent threads) and hoping that something sticks.
I disagreed with this statement:
"He won because more African Americans, Latinos, and women voted for him than voted for Romney. Those are facts,"

No one has demonstrated that this statement is true, and I have attempted to explain why it is false. The Pew article does not show it to be true, either.

If the statement was "He won because a larger percentage of African Americans, Latinos, and women voters voted for him than voted for Romney. Those are facts," then there would be nothing to dispute. I would agree with that statement, as would PBS and Pew.

After all the votes are officially tallied it will be easier to find the raw numbers, but the raw numbers are not going to show that a larger number of black people voted for Trump than Romney.

This is a good general article on the subject:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/omriben...use-of-lower-democratic-turnout/#6a11c7e740a1
 
Last edited:
I disagreed with this statement:
"He won because more African Americans, Latinos, and women voted for him than voted for Romney. Those are facts,"

No one has demonstrated that this statement is true, and I have attempted to explain why it is false. The Pew article does not show it to be true, either.

If the statement was "He won because a larger percentage of African Americans, Latinos, and women voters voted for him than voted for Romney. Those are facts," then there would be nothing to dispute. I would agree with that statement, as would PBS and Pew.

After all the votes are officially tallied it will be easier to find the raw numbers, but the raw numbers are not going to show that a larger number of black people voted for Trump than Romney.

I didn't assume he meant it how you're describing. Perhaps you shouldn't have either.


But now I have to point out that if you want to nit pick what he meant and what you understood...that's OK.

However, when I point out your false claim... that was also reinforced by the rest of your statement.... you try to be dismissive, and spin it to it being my misunderstanding by saying:

If you want to quibble about what I meant and you understood about "total vote" - whatever. .


So, I guess I'll just say 'whatever'. Spin it how ever it makes you feel best.
 
So, I guess I'll just say 'whatever'. Spin it how ever it makes you feel best.
The "whatever" is your attempt to make our miscommunication into a deliberate obfiscation on my part. It wasn't.

RPNY claimed more individuals of certain groups voted for Trump than before, and more individuals certainly did not. Fewer people voted against him. Percentages aren't people, and it is only by converting the real numbers into abstract percentages that someone could come to that false conclusion.

You seem to be put out that I would respond to false information, when I am not the one who asserted a false claim in the first place.
 
The majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners do not view federal LE as Nazis. The majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners do not view pedophile cultists as relate-able fellow citizens.

The NRA's choice to vilify LE and a piss off a Rep President in apparent support of crazy sex offenders was just plain stupid. And they have been back pedaling ever since. While I'm sure YOU have some great reasons that everyone should hate FBI agents, you are in an incredible minority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top