I don't understand how Linda's campaign is the reason for PG

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Rysenberg, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. It just doesn't make sense to me for a couple of reasons.

    First of all: she's not even a part of the company anymore? So how, exactly, does it have any bearing on her political campaign?

    Secondly: If it was a TV-14 show, as long as they didn't do anything that was beyond what they were allowed to, then why is it that bad a thing? Yes, I know that political candidates (who from the little I have seen, have been pretty ill-informed with WWE stuff) won't look that deeply into these things, but stuff like the Sheamus segment; remarks like 'If your lipschitz, the what does your arse do?' on a PG rated show no reflect badly on the company compared to if he made that remark on a TV-14 show?

    I don't understand this whole thing at all, can anyone explain this to me?
     
  2. In American politics, the candidates usually dig up whatever they can from the past to make the other person look bad as an easy way to sway popular opinion since most people don't check facts and just go by what they see on commercials.

    It's safe to say you can look back in wrestling history and see tons of things to paint Linda in a bad light just from her association with WWE, so they're trying to clean up the product to show that WWE has turned a new leaf, so has Linda, so it's safe to put her in the Senate.

    Obviously there are other reasons (catering to children, a culture nowadays that knows about concussions and is very leery towards head injuries, a fanbase that isn't as into the hardcore stuff as it was back in the ECW days) but it's pretty easy to point at Linda and blame her for the squeaky-clean image of WWE nowadays.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. She's fired many people in WWE. Part of her campaign is to "open up more jobs and reduce unemployment". That's an example of how it can be used against her. If WWE became a bad product for main stream media, then she would be slated as it's her husband who owns it.
     
  4. Politics. :dawg:

    But I'm quite sure her campaign is not the sole reason for PG, as Rain said.
     
  5. ^This
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. God American politics are poor. I'm sorry, but job losses aside what relevance does WWE have to the campaign? I still don't understand it. And I don't see the issue with a dodgy product if it's set for the appropriate age?
     
  7. I don't think Kim ever thought it was the ONLY reason it went PG. It's the reason why the current PG product is more like U, not PG. It's why such edgy moments are SO rare on RAW, but it's not the sole reason as to why WWE is PG no.

    Edit to answer questions:

    Well if she's fired tons of people in her past job, how can anyone believe she's going to reduce unemployment? It's not a good example is it. It's something that can easily be used against her, and that is American politics. It's not about impressing the people, it's about fucking up the opponent.

    As for the latter question: Sponsorships. If your product is edgy when your sponsorships are aimed at kids, then they'll be mad as an edgy product does come with risks like losing the majority of your kid fanbase. Though as Seabs once said, I don't see why WWE couldn't attract other sponsorships who aim their product at teenagers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. It's not just American politics baby girl. It's politics.

    WWF/E was a crazy entity when Linda was involved with it. Anything you do in your past as a politician is going to haunt you. So for Linda being a main cog in a company like WWE, which has often times in the past done things to offend a lot of people and has a poor image in many different areas, you can bet your ass it will be brought up by anyone she ever runs against. The 'best' politicians are the ones you ca't dig up any dirt on. Linda has dirt. It's the WWE.

    As for the job losses/creations.. how do you not get that? She is running on a platform that she created jobs when she was with WWE.. when statistics show she actually cost more people their jobs then she created.. and she/other higher ups were taking tax cuts and pay bumps.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Edited my post for you Kim <3
     


  10. Thanks <3

    Yeah I understand the sponsors part, that has always made sense to me.

    I don't get how the unemployment has any relation to PG though? Or are we just talking about how WWE may affect her?

    But now that Linda has the "dirt" that Dolph's mentions, then how come she tries to change the WWE now? What has happened in the past cannot be changed, so what difference does it make when candidates can immediately bring up past WWE happenings?

    And I'm not certain that it is as bad in the UK for this. Look at Labour a few years ago. Prescott knocked out a man for throwing an egg off of his face, and yet they win the election only a few days later? That's worse than a few dodgy WWE shows I would say.
     
  11. If you ask any random person on the street, they won't look at facts like Dolph's mentioned. They'll bring up "Hey, she ran that WWF company that had all the blood, steroids, glorifying injuries, borderline porn, disgusting storylines, etc.", and with the PG Era she can answer for all of that. (and she can spin that WWF/E has always wanted to be family friendly, except they had to make the tough decisions when they were getting their asses kicked by WCW)

    Unrelated side note: There's a guy running for House down here who's ad campaign is "I spent my whole life running a milk company, not ruining the country. Don't vote for the people who already had their shot in Congress and fucked this country up, vote for a guy who's never been." I guarantee that would be the best way for Linda to go.
     
  12. Her opponent is already using stuff from WWE's past to bring her down in the polls. At least now she can say "oh well they're not like that anymore. Have you seen our bs bullying campaign? B.A Star lil bitch, Linda out :finger: "

    Well maybe not in those exact words but you get the point. It was a company she was involved with at one point during it's "worst" (best) times, so having the show changed debunks that a bit.

    ...but i hope she loses. I hope someone finds some hidden picture of her in some sort of lesbian affair, so she just gets out of this, so i can have my shows back. Who cares about Connecticut anyway?