Edited:


Perhaps ‘redefining’ a question,
to include  parameters, and assigning a ’team’ ,
    (Government or Private funded)  
to discover information,
on that simple question is required.

The Question:
A Hollywood, movie/TV show, is made.
That movie/TV show depicts the actors in that movie/TV show as, ‘dumb’.
If that movie/TV shows/depicts, those actors later in life,
(Which the Movie/TV show already, implied/shown/depicted them, as DUMB)
What % does it depict, ‘Republican or Democrat’, as DUMB.

Of course, if the, ’team’, has a pillow maker on it,
the results are all wrong,
 just because.

Republican administrations turn out to be crooks and fools.
Just can't change reality.

"That was my original challenge after I mentioned Anchorman as an example. You brought up Jay and Silent Bob which was a poor retort."

 I also asked multiple questions in an attempt to clarify what you mean.  For instance "associated with" which you won't answer.  This was an attempt to avoid rule-changing or misinterpretation.  You changed "associated with" to "Part of".  Jay and Silent Bob, I very clearly indicated did not meet your criteria.  However instead of imagining up a complete hypothetical movie I used an actual film to assist in reaching an answer to my question:

More important how do you define "associated with" in regards to a political party?  What are the parameters you would accept?

 I also asked:

Are these characters only fictional, or are interpretations of real humans allowed?

What do you define as "Dumb or very bad" and is the character only to contain these traits?  For instance is "violent" exempt if the violence is not interpreted as "very bad"?   How is "very bad" differentiated from "bad"?

 How would I know what you will accept as information if you do not tell me?

 How does the West Wing meet the criteria you put forth to us?  (Us meaning all known humans that are not Webstermark)


 Then you added "acceptable to Entertainment Culture", so I think it's fair to add that to your current challenge question and not bring it up randomly.  Given your responses I read your actual challenge to be this:

Challenge: find me a movie where a character in a movie who is either universally understood to be dumb or a very bad person, is jokingly associated with and part of the Democratic Party in their future and that character's actions are not acceptable to current Entertainment Culture.




"You seemed to suggest it would be easy to match instances in movies and TV shows where Democrats were portrayed as fools as often as Republicans."

 I have never mentioned any words such as balanced, equal, same, matching etc. in regards to this topic.  I agree with you.

 Now if you ever actually acknowledge that (I don't mean words, I mean not continuing to defend your stance that I already agree with) I might be able to work on what you asked, but you need to give me enough information to do this instead of trying to indicate I have an answer before I even do research.  How much sense does that make?

 I have, repeatedly, indicated I am under the impression you meant films based off of this: "find me a movie"  You brought up TV shows, so how you have assessed I did that is not clear to me.


 "I gave you a couple of epilogue instances and asked you to list similar epilogues 180 degrees opposite."

 And also presented West Wing.  How is that TV show, that has literally zero of your required criteria applicable here?  At least Jay and Silent Bob is an actual movie.  So am I allowed to present TV shows and ignore the parameters of your challenge also?


 

 "Eegore my friend, let’s drop this. The entertainment industry is dominated by the left and heavily dominated by the wacho left, Rob Reiner is perfect example. It wouldn’t matter what criteria we agreed to, the evidence would overwhelmingly prove my point and you’ve said so. Everyone knows this."

 I agreed with a majority but not 99% as you indicated.  Of course
if we are isolating this strictly to movies that jokingly show association that is specifically part-of the Republican party at the end of the film that is representing a dumb or very bad character's future in a way that is not conducive to being acceptable to entertainment culture by your assessment of what "acceptable" is.  Then sure I would say that may be 100% as you indicated.  

 I imagine you might not find a lot of films if I placed enough criteria on my request.  For instance find some that have 2 males that are depicted as having undesirable behavior in comedic tone that between 30 and 37 minutes after the film begin and, show a depiction of strong association to the Democratic party in a way that I feel is acceptable to modern entertainment culture.

 That's vey specific, and obviously is designed that way to eliminate opposing information.  Then once you do offer a film I will bring up TV shows even though I specifically asked for movies.  Then I will offer 10 "more" films and just repeat the one I already offered.

 My point here is that avoiding clarifying questions, altering the rules, and then not following them is not exactly a good way to prove your view.  Its plausible, to me, that Democratic associated characters exist in film and are negatively portrayed.  I question how much impact Animal House and Weatherman truly had on election decisions.

 As for illegal procedures, I posted the entirety of the PA case and have yet to hear back on what was illegal there.

 

WebsterMark wrote on 07/26/21 at 05:32:59:

I agree.
Just yesterday watching the, 'Law & Order' reruns.

At the end of one, the DA and his lead Prosecutor were talking about the last case.
It was in the foyer of a building, both were wearing Tuxes, and the sign on the door behind them said, 'Democratic Club Dinner', and they were (verbally), patting each other on the back stating how 'smart' they were.
Then they went in to that room.

Hmmmm, what political affirmation do you think that showed ?

Now before someone, 'Spins', and another does a 'Drive-By',
Their are 'Political' ""Suggestions"", given in many TV/Movie shows.

The POINT IS,
Lately, (last 15 + years), They are a VERY high number of,
Democrat is good, Republican is bad.

And no amount of defining minutia paramours to the n'th degree,
will change that !

Why does it have to be an epilogue,

Cause I was the one who brought it up to begin with.

This whole thing is moot. It’s like going through an exhausting exercise to prove water is wet.

Liberalism dominates Hollywood and the entertainment culture. I contend for every example you could find that disputes that I could find 100 that proves it.

Seriously, I’m done with this.