2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMichael Moore officially endorses Bernie tonight
Last edited Mon Feb 1, 2016, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)
From his website: http://michaelmoore.com/myendorsementofbernie/
My Dear Friends,
When I was a child, they said there was no way this majority-Protestant country of ours would ever elect a Catholic as president. And then John Fitzgerald Kennedy was elected president.
The next decade, they said America would not elect a president from the Deep South. The last person to do that on his own (not as a v-p) was Zachary Taylor in 1849. And then we elected President Jimmy Carter.
In 1980, they said voters would never elect a president who had been divorced and remarried. Way too religious of a country for that, they said. Welcome, President Ronald Reagan, 1981-89.
They said you could not get elected president if you had not served in the military. No one could remember when someone who hadnt served had been elected Commander-in-Chief. Or who had confessed to trying (but not inhaling!) Illegal drugs. President Bill Clinton, 1993-2001.
And then finally they saId that theres NO WAY the Democrats were going to win if they nominated a BLACK man for president a black man whos middle name was Hussein! America was still too racist for that. Dont do it!, people quietly warned each other.
BOOM!
Do you ever wonder why the pundits, the political class, are always so sure that Americans just arent ready for something and then theyre always just so wrong? They says these things because they want to protect the status quo. They dont want the boat rocked. They try to scare the average person into voting against their better judgment.
And now, this year they are claiming that theres no way a democratic socialist can get elected President of the United States. That is the main talking point coming now from the Hillary Clinton campaign office.
But all the polls show Bernie Sanders actually BEATING Donald Trump by twice as many votes than if Hillary Clinton was the candidate.
Although the polls nationally show Hillary beating Bernie among DEMOCRATS, when the pollster includes all INDEPENDENTS, then Sanders beats Trump two to one over what Clinton would do.
The way the Clinton campaign has been red-baiting Sanders is unfortunate and tone deaf. According to NBC, 43% of Iowa Dems identify themselves more closely with socialism (sharing, helping) than with capitalism (greed, inequality). Most polls now show young adults (18-35) across America prefer socialism (fairness) to capitalism (selfishness).
So, what is democratic socialism? Its having a true democracy where everyone has a seat at the table, where everyone has a voice, not just the rich.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary recently announced the most looked-up word in their online dictionary in 2015 was socialism. If youre under 49 (the largest voting block), the days of the Cold War & Commie Pinkos & the Red Scare look as stupid as Reefer Madness.
If Hillarys biggest selling point as to why you should vote for her is, Bernies a socialist! or A socialist cant win!, then shes lost.
The New York Times, which admitted it made up stories of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq & pushed us to invade that country, has now endorsed Hillary Clinton, the candidate who voted for the Iraq War. I thought the Times had apologized and reformed itself. What Is going on here?
Well, the Times likes its candidates to be realistic and pragmatic. And to them, that means Hillary Clinton. She doesnt want to break up the banks, doesnt want to bring back Glass-Steagall, doesnt want to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr., doesnt want Denmarks free health care system. Just not realistic, I guess.
....................more http://michaelmoore.com/myendorsementofbernie/
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And wow if that happens!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Go, Bernie, Go!!!!
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)montanacowboy
(6,099 posts)I thought he was going to endorse Hillary after I saw him on Chris Hayes - I am surprised and thrilled. Good for you Michael.
Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)I'm proud of his wise endorsement, and saw exactly what Clinton is all about.
....psst, linky-poo?
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Who needs facts when you can #feelthebern
Good endorsement however.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Not every graphic gets to be a "meme."
Why don't you specify the false details in it. Enlighten us.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Heck the table doesn't even get your candidates positions correct.
Lol.
Got to love the blatant misrepresentations in these tables/memes that pass off as "facts" around here.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Your phrasing is interesting. You seem to have a feudal idea of this, as though it's about loyalty to some person. I listen to what each say and the rest is easy. I believe in democracy, in which people should decide what the conditions of their lives are, not which bozo gets to play their leader. On that basis, I would vote for Sanders tomorrow over Clinton, yes, but it takes a fan's (short for fanatic) mentality to speak of "my" candidate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It isn't feudal... It's an election.
Nice try with the personal insult but it didn't work. I've voted for Sanders, campaigned for Sanders, and he was MY senator for a while.
Guess I must be a fanatic of him too. What I'm not a fanatic of is blatant misrepresentation of facts.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)".......I first endorsed Bernie Sanders for public office in 1990 when he, as mayor of Burlington, VT, asked me to come up there and hold a rally for him in his run to become Vermonts congressman. I guess not many were willing to go stump for an avowed democratic socialist at the time. Probably someone is his hippie-filled campaign office said, Ill bet Michael Moore will do it! They were right. I trucked up into the middle of nowhere and did my best to explain why we needed Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Congress. He won, Ive been a supporter of his ever since, and hes never given me reason to not continue that support. I honestly thought Id never see the day come where I would write to you and get to say these words: Please vote for Senator Bernie Sanders to be our next President of the United States of America.
I wouldnt ask this of you if I didnt think we really, truly needed him. And we do. More than we probably know."
Sincerely Yours,
Michael Moore
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)his "forbidden love" for Hillary. Oh, well...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michael-moore-explains-his-forbidden-love-of-hillary-clinton-yes-that-kind/
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Response to ErikJ (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Like you did for Kerry.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)The only war listed that Bernie opposed/ voted against is Iraq. He voted for Afg. And Libya, supports coalition-based intervention in Syria. He also voted for the authorization of forces agreement for Iraq and subsequent funding.
Clinton did not oppose gay rights until 2010. That is a complete fabrication. Sanders is actually on record opposing marriage equality in VT, while Clinton was implementing benefits for LGBT in the State Dept.
Clinton opposes TPP and voted against other trade agreements while in the Senate.
The claim Clinton "takes a billion from corporations" is a complete and total lie. She hasn't even raised a fraction of that amount through any and all contributions. The candidate currently supported most heavily by Super Pacs is in fact Bernie, who is benefiting from millions of dollars of dark money being spent by the rove and others to try to make him their opponent.
Clinton has publicly come out against keystone.
When records are fabricated to this degree, it says something deeply disturbing about American politics. It also shows that Clinton's record doesn't fit the goals of those seeking to defeat her, so they engage in complete and duplicitous distortions. It also shows Sanders record isn't good enough so they feel compelled to change it in order to fit the Manichean narrative than works against an informed citizenry and thoughtful discussion of issues. This works to create a public who neither knows or cares about the records of candidates or the complexity of issues facing the nation. In depends on an uninformed public and serves to make them even more misinformed.
It is one thing to disagree about issues and another to fabricate. This sort of thing does voters or the country no favor. The meme above spreads false claims that rival even Fox News. It truly is shameful, and even more so that people who spend months on end arguing about elections know so little about the candidates' voting records.
As a voter, I know that when supporters feel compelled to fabricate and distort to promote a candidate, they effectively are conceding his actual record isn't good enough and the record of his opponent not bad enough.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i agree that she's a lot more liberal than painted but it's the economic issues which concern me the most and like the past two double-term dem presidents she has taken A LOT of money from wall street.
thanks for you analysis. do you have sources on the dark money accusation. i keep hearing this around the internet but can't find any proof to back it up.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Hell, I lived in Arkansas when she was the state's first lady, and her goddamn law firm, which she represented in a court case against ACORN and Little Rock residential utility ratepayers, probably cheated my family out of reduced electricity rates back in the '70s. She was on Wal-Mart's board when I was a temporary worker in a Wal-Mart warehouse not 5 miles from Sam Walton's house, and from what I gather she made no attempt to support Wal-Mart workers who wanted to unionize. And there was the time when I met her and Bill at the Springdale Arkansas airport in August 1993, and while Bill was shaking everybody's hand, she made some lame-ass excuse why she wouldn't shake anyone's hand. She was totally aloof from us local yokels.
She obviously couldn't connect with the "little people" then, and she can't connect with them now.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)* Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton and Republicans have not.
* Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton & The Republicans do not.
* Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton and Th Republicans do not.
* Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
* Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
* Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton and the Republicans (and too many "Democrats) did not.
* Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
* Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
* Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
* Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
* Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton and The Republicans do not.
* Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
* Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton and the Republicans did not.
* Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton and The Republicans did not.
* Sanders wants to Raise (or eliminate) the CAP on FICA deductions. Clinton and the Republicans do not.
* Sanders opposes unrestricted "Free Trade". Clinton and the Republican do not.
Hillary sure seems to agree with Republicans a lot.
I don't,
that is why I am a Democrat, and voting for a Democrat....Bernie!
John Poet
(2,510 posts)about alleged "disinformation" or 'fabricated records'...
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)To provide evidence to refute any of my points. Instead, you insist the simple fact I don't support your guy invalidates me. That is an approach to politics based entirely on personality, not issues or substance.
Yes, I assert my democratic right to vote for the candidate I believe best qualified rather than voting as you demand. I understand you feel entitled to control the votes of others, but the constitution does not give you that right, instead leaving you with only one vote, no more than the millions of other Americans you have declared as unfit. So much for equality.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Please link to evidence that I "feel entitled to control the votes of others"
Additionally, please post evidence that I have "demanded" you vote a certain way.
I'll wait.
See, you have gone and put words in my mouth that I've never said.
That's a good example of "disinformation" and "manufacturing records",
coming straight from your own keyboard.
Now you can go back to my previous post and re-read it--
the one about supporters of a certain candidate having no standing to complain about disinformation. You just proved MY point. Many thanks.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Righteous.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)until the same-old-shit canard about Republican superpacs "supporting" Sanders. I stop there. You see, you don't seem to know that the kitchen-sink approach is counterproductive. You should stick with the nuanced detail points and leave out the Big Lies that discredit your case. Even if it were true - and it's bullshit - it would be completely irrelevant. It's not solicited or desired by Sanders, it's not official money, it's not supporting his candidacy for president. It's a speculation about a supposed tactical move by third parties that his campaign has nothing to do with. And it's total bullshit. The RW propaganda has attacked Clinton until now as the presumptive nominee, and they're still (correctly, sadly) assuming she's the favorite, so they try to scratch her up. They will be equally vicious to either. If you think what Rove does (or what you imagine Rove is doing) should be an argument for your decisions, that's your problem.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)I really didn't see how he could do otherwise, having taken in account the issue differences which Moore himself brings up in the endorsement.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)I've been an avid listener, as should all of you, to the Hartmann program for years, where upon Bernie has been his guest every Friday for years. I've always adhere to the principles of Democratic Socialism even before I was introduced to Bernie. I'm just so happy we have someone willing to stand up to the BS that has plagued our country not just since the Reagan era, but for decades before that. Michael is also someone I admire and has used his chutzpah to wake our citizens up. Thank you Thom Hartmann and thank you Michael Moore.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..Do Not Miss list for years,
and I usually get to listen or watch Thom regularly.
Loved that he was a panelist on Bill Maher's show last Friday.
Uncle Joe
(58,405 posts)Thanks for the thread, ErikJ.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)Maybe we will soon be a little less Sicko nationwide.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I always thought that a present wouldn't be exciting if you knew what it was before you got it. I totally expected this endorsement, yet I am just as happy as I would have been if I hadn't known it was coming.