Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
81 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Something tells me Michael Moore won't be voting for Hillary (Original Post) Cheese Sandwich Jan 2016 OP
Well to be fair Michael Moore said that way back Ichingcarpenter Jan 2016 #1
It's moving so fast I can hardly keep up Cheese Sandwich Jan 2016 #11
His views must have "evolved" since then. n/t. Ken Burch Jan 2016 #18
that's right - he was referring to Friday or Saturday Hillary. Today we have Sunday Hillary, dammit! kath Jan 2016 #80
Dinnae matter. He's already under the bus. merrily Jan 2016 #2
He is working on a documentary to explain Socialism. Kalidurga Jan 2016 #3
the problem in a nutshell reddread Jan 2016 #4
Wow, just a few days ago some local Nostradamii were predicting a HRC endorsement. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #5
I've heard tons of absolute predictions from Camp Weathervane. 99Forever Jan 2016 #33
actually the predictions were from both sides dsc Jan 2016 #42
"Nostradamii" !!! LOL. Now we're going back milennia. Hmmmm. n/t libdem4life Jan 2016 #63
He wasn't too pure to campaign for Kerry in 2004 however. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #6
Kerry does not equal Clinton reddread Jan 2016 #7
Voted for the subject under discussion in the OP, so yes Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #8
And we were fed a giant fucking line about needing to run the supposedly stronger, more 'electable' Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #13
no reddread Jan 2016 #54
I know it's tough when you wish the subject under discussion Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #75
I bet! Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #81
With 12 years hindsight the Iraq invasion looks 100 times worse. Cheese Sandwich Jan 2016 #9
I lot of people saw EXACTLY how bad a decision it was. kristopher Jan 2016 #17
Um, Moore made a movie about it? Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #19
because they have penises silly dsc Jan 2016 #43
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he'll probably campaign for her. NT Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #10
What with his "forbidden love for Hillary" and all. joshcryer Jan 2016 #12
So? He should have known this would be an easy point to call him out on. Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #21
Eh. I supported Kerry in 2004. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #26
Moore did not support Kerry in the primary in 04, just in the general. Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #59
That's what I figured. But I didn't remember specifically. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #76
I have no doubt he will support the Democratic Nominee Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #14
I'm not so sure about that caraher Jan 2016 #16
True. But he profusely apologized for it, too. I remember him getting on his knees Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #22
we are still in the primary season where there is an option other than an IWR voter. m-lekktor Jan 2016 #44
He did not support Kerry in the primary, but did so strongly once Kerry was the nominee. Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #56
They truly believe Clinton is the Party and the rest of us are not. DemocraticWing Jan 2016 #78
He thought it was for John Kerry.... Funny how guys (like Moore) can give the "guys" a break... boston bean Jan 2016 #15
You figured it out! Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #23
I determined a double standard... you take from it what you want.... boston bean Jan 2016 #24
Sure. Hey, aren't we supposed to evolve and learn? Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #27
I wasn't aware I was speaking of you. I think that may be where your problem arises. It aint all boston bean Jan 2016 #28
Well, you're on a discussion board, so I'm going to discuss. If you don't like it, use ignore. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #29
I'm discussing just fine. If you don't like it, take your own advice. boston bean Jan 2016 #30
Sure, ya are. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #31
Sure I am what? boston bean Jan 2016 #32
I think I was agreeing with you. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #34
I can see you think a lot of things. That was never a/the question. boston bean Jan 2016 #35
Well for someone who says it's not about me, you seem awfully focused on the topic. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #36
You responded to me, with an anecdote about yourself. You seem awfully focused on the topic and boston bean Jan 2016 #37
And again, it seems to me that people who spend increasing amounts of time in ideologically Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #38
Another post, not based on my response, but a personal attack. boston bean Jan 2016 #39
not an attack, an observation. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #40
Whatever you want it to mean. You seem to do that well enough. boston bean Jan 2016 #41
Right, where you stared in with "it aint all about you", up there, that wasnt an attack, eh. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #45
No, I don't think it was an attack, in context of the OP I was responding to. boston bean Jan 2016 #46
My first response to you was expressing that I thought it was silly to suggest Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #48
It's saying exactly what it says. boston bean Jan 2016 #49
Indeed it is, Cap'm Tautology. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #50
Glad to see you agree. nt boston bean Jan 2016 #51
A=A is the foundation of all western logic. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #52
You said it, not me... boston bean Jan 2016 #53
He did not support Kerry in the primary, so the double standard seems to be your own. Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #65
and again, I will answer you: boston bean Jan 2016 #66
That does not explain your comparison of primary support to general election support at all. Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #69
I'll guess you will have to point to my words that say what you are saying I said. boston bean Jan 2016 #70
In the General Election he supported the nominee. Is this a general election or a primary? Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #55
I shall repeat what I told another poster: boston bean Jan 2016 #61
I also won't vote for her in a primary but always vote for the Democratic nominee, that's how it Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #67
I didn't falsely proclaim anything. Get that straight, please. boston bean Jan 2016 #68
Of course you did, you need to admit that and move on or prove your assertions. Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #71
this is crazy. I never said what you are saying I did, and i wonder if you have actually read my boston bean Jan 2016 #72
I think maybe you did not phrase it well, because you are communicating exactly what I and others Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #74
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #20
He would have turned his back on everything he told us he stood for. n/t Skwmom Jan 2016 #25
Good for him Lawud Jan 2016 #47
If u vote against the Brady Bill / say u might change ur mind (after who knows how many people died. brooklynite Jan 2016 #57
What? Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #60
Apparently changing your mind after a bad vote is unacceptable... brooklynite Jan 2016 #62
How do you change your mind after shock and awe? 'Whoops, that was a fuck up! Now make me President! Bluenorthwest Jan 2016 #73
Motives were different. retrowire Jan 2016 #79
He should add her role in pushing so hard for the destruction of Libya, polly7 Jan 2016 #58
Exactly! And the title of his new movie, "Where To Invade Next", doesn't say he's supporting in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #64
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #77

kath

(10,565 posts)
80. that's right - he was referring to Friday or Saturday Hillary. Today we have Sunday Hillary, dammit!
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jan 2016

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
3. He is working on a documentary to explain Socialism.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 06:11 AM
Jan 2016

Something about that just doesn't scream I support Hillary to me.

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
4. the problem in a nutshell
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 06:23 AM
Jan 2016

Hillary expects to be rewarded for aiding and abetting war crimes.
Voters are being asked to assent to the IWR in retrospect.
dont be a war criminal. dont sign off on this.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
33. I've heard tons of absolute predictions from Camp Weathervane.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:56 AM
Jan 2016

Almost all have failed. At least they are consistent.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
13. And we were fed a giant fucking line about needing to run the supposedly stronger, more 'electable'
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:08 AM
Jan 2016

candidate that cycle, too.

And lo and behold, when election time came around we arguably would have done a metric fuckton better if we had ran the guy who was able to draw the clear moral distinction between us and the other party, particularly on that issue.

Go figure.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
75. I know it's tough when you wish the subject under discussion
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:14 PM
Jan 2016

was different than it really is. Too bad for you.

 

Cheese Sandwich

(9,086 posts)
9. With 12 years hindsight the Iraq invasion looks 100 times worse.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 07:36 AM
Jan 2016

Nobody could have fully appreciated back then just how much of a stupid decision it actually was.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
17. I lot of people saw EXACTLY how bad a decision it was.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:20 AM
Jan 2016

You had to be a complete sucker, an idiot or a warmonger to have been clueless.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
19. Um, Moore made a movie about it?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:23 AM
Jan 2016

In 2004, in fact.

Edit: and if your point is true, then why doesn't HRC get the same benefit of the doubt as Kerry and Moore?

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
21. So? He should have known this would be an easy point to call him out on.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:28 AM
Jan 2016

I like and respect the guy, but if his stock in trade is integrity, acting like he is too godly to support a politician who supported the IWR is pretty revisionist.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
26. Eh. I supported Kerry in 2004.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:35 AM
Jan 2016

It was a mistake. I should have backed Dean.

But since then I've learned to be much more skeptical of certain tired brands of authoritative-sounding bullshit.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
14. I have no doubt he will support the Democratic Nominee
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:11 AM
Jan 2016

but it would appear the primaries aren't over, yet. Who knew?





caraher

(6,276 posts)
16. I'm not so sure about that
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:19 AM
Jan 2016

He did back Nader in 2000. But on the other hand, it's unlikely anyone as well-known as Nader will be running to the left of the Democrat this year.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. True. But he profusely apologized for it, too. I remember him getting on his knees
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:29 AM
Jan 2016

and begging Nader not to run in '04, so I suspect he learned his lesson.

m-lekktor

(3,675 posts)
44. we are still in the primary season where there is an option other than an IWR voter.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:36 AM
Jan 2016

You Hillary people who keep using this talking point always conveniently neglect to mention this. When the primary is over and all you have is a D vs an R who both voted for it that is a different story.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
56. He did not support Kerry in the primary, but did so strongly once Kerry was the nominee.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jan 2016

This is a primary we are in right now, not a general election. So how is it 'interesting' or comparable? I will not vote for Hillary in the primary, if she's the nominee I will campaign for her and against the Republican. That's how it works. Is that news to you?

DemocraticWing

(1,290 posts)
78. They truly believe Clinton is the Party and the rest of us are not.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 05:04 PM
Jan 2016

It's completely upside down thinking, but a primary campaign against her is apparently anti-Party.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
15. He thought it was for John Kerry.... Funny how guys (like Moore) can give the "guys" a break...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:15 AM
Jan 2016

But are all high up on the principle when a woman is running.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
27. Sure. Hey, aren't we supposed to evolve and learn?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:38 AM
Jan 2016

I supported Kerry, too, at the time. But I wish we would have run Dean in 2004. Not running someone who could articulate a clear moral alternative to Bush, particularly on the iraq invasion, was a huge error.

It was more meaningful then, certainly, than it is now. The IWR vote still factors into my assessment of HRC's judgment, but taken alone it would not itself be a dealbreaker for me this primary season.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
28. I wasn't aware I was speaking of you. I think that may be where your problem arises. It aint all
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:39 AM
Jan 2016

about you, unless you make it so.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
29. Well, you're on a discussion board, so I'm going to discuss. If you don't like it, use ignore.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:42 AM
Jan 2016

Otherwise, I don't know what to tell you. I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say, and if you don't like it, I'm sure there are plenty of heavily moderated special forums where you can only read the sorts of words you want to.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
34. I think I was agreeing with you.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:02 AM
Jan 2016

So whatever it is you believed it was that you were saying, probably that.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
36. Well for someone who says it's not about me, you seem awfully focused on the topic.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:15 AM
Jan 2016


And as undeniably fascinating a subject as I am, I'm much more interested in the central question here of whether or not it is hypocritical (much less indicative of some spooky unseen bias, of which specific stripe of course we have no idea of course of course robble) for someone who supported a candidate in 2004 who voted for the IWR, to continue to be critical of the decision and to criticize a candidate running in '16 for it.

I relate my own experience because it is relevant to me, not just because I do live inside my own head, but also because I suspect - actually, I know, from many conversations on the topic- that many people shared a similar learning trajectory over the course of that election and its outcome.

It is also worth noting that Nowhere has Michael Moore said he wont vote for the eventual dem nominee, and although I keep mentioning it, some people DO really seem unclear on the point that we dont, actually, have a nominee yet.

I also dont remember if MM supported Kerry in the primary contest, or not. I know he supported Kerry as the nominee.

Such an additional data point seems relevant to me, but there I go with my massively outsized ego, bringing me into it again.

My bad!

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
37. You responded to me, with an anecdote about yourself. You seem awfully focused on the topic and
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:19 AM
Jan 2016

keep responding.

Please do continue on.

The issue at point is not whether he would eventually support a nominee. He has already voted and campaigned against his highly held principles (by endorsing Kerry), and that makes his recent tweet a fucking joke and a double standard.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
38. And again, it seems to me that people who spend increasing amounts of time in ideologically
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:24 AM
Jan 2016

monochromatic echo chambers get a smidge unglued when they swim back into the deep end where they may actually encounter people who disagree with them.

I appreciate your request for me to continue responding, but I tend to act organically. Or to put it more simply, I do the shit I feel like doing, or I don't.


boston bean

(36,186 posts)
39. Another post, not based on my response, but a personal attack.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:26 AM
Jan 2016

Don't you worry though. I do the shit I feel like doing to or I don't.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
41. Whatever you want it to mean. You seem to do that well enough.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:29 AM
Jan 2016

Considering, the responses are not in keeping with normal dialogue but instead are personal attacks non related to the topic at hand.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
45. Right, where you stared in with "it aint all about you", up there, that wasnt an attack, eh.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:37 AM
Jan 2016

Beyond that, I keep seeing people who get agitated when certain other people on the board respond to their posts, like they have some invisible list of who is allowed to respond to them or not. But ... they don't want to use ignore.

Thats what im commenting on. Its not about you, (see? "its not all about you!" ) more a general vibe of some people, who maybe seem to have forgotten they're in GDP.



You can take it how you want, and i suspect you will, but its really not that fascinating of a subject for me, so...

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
46. No, I don't think it was an attack, in context of the OP I was responding to.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:41 AM
Jan 2016

I don't have one person on ignore, and again, here we go again, with the entry of your posts, not responding to a topic, but about you and what you think other people are doing, and how they should do it, and why they are doing it. With nothing but suspicions based upon your own anecdotal evidence which amounts to NOTHING.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
48. My first response to you was expressing that I thought it was silly to suggest
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:47 AM
Jan 2016

That Michael Moore's motivation here was misogyny.

And I do, I do think it's silly.

And despite your response after that, I really dont see how anyone could logically parse your first post up there, and get any interpretation OTHER than, you were suggesting misogyny was the culprit.

This is what you said-

Funny how guys (like Moore) can give "the guys" a break, but are all high up on the principle when a woman is running


... If that's NOT suggesting misogyny is at play here, what in the Sam Hell is it saying?

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
65. He did not support Kerry in the primary, so the double standard seems to be your own.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:08 PM
Jan 2016

This being the primary and all.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
66. and again, I will answer you:
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:10 PM
Jan 2016
The issue at point is not whether he would eventually support a nominee. He has already voted and campaigned against his highly held principles (by endorsing Kerry), and that makes his recent tweet a fucking joke and a double standard.
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
69. That does not explain your comparison of primary support to general election support at all.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:24 PM
Jan 2016

That's just you sputtering away without saying anything at all about why you are comparing apples to oranges and claiming they are both pears.
It is your choice to compare as equals things which are not the same and then convict Moore for the difference. You have not explained that choice or why you think it is ethical to do that. It's not ethical, it is dishonest.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
55. In the General Election he supported the nominee. Is this a general election or a primary?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:54 AM
Jan 2016

Moore did not support Kerry in the primary season, but once Kerry was the nominee he mounted a national college tour to encourage voting for Kerry, named it the Slacker Tour and paid for the whole thing himself.
But this is a primary. This is not a General election.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
61. I shall repeat what I told another poster:
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:01 PM
Jan 2016
The issue at point is not whether he would eventually support a nominee. He has already voted and campaigned against his highly held principles (by endorsing Kerry), and that makes his recent tweet a fucking joke and a double standard.
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
67. I also won't vote for her in a primary but always vote for the Democratic nominee, that's how it
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:20 PM
Jan 2016

works. Compare primary support to primary support, not to general election support. To say 'he supported the nominee then, why won't he endorse this primary candidate' is comparing apples to oranges, dinner to breakfast, soup to nuts.

You claimed falsely that he supported Kerry under the same circumstances in which he will not support Clinton. You are just wrong, wrong and wrong. It's not bad to be wrong, it is sad to hold on tight to that wrong.

You compare primary choices to general election politics. You do so because that serves your rhetorical need to bash Moore for not endorsing your primary choice. It's not honest. But it is what I expect from you this cycle.

You were for Hillary in 08. Did you not vote for Obama in the GE? I vote for the nominee. My choice is never the nominee, I still vote for the nominee. Apparently you do not. You should do as I do and as Moore does. Support the nominee even if we are not thrilled about the nominee.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
71. Of course you did, you need to admit that and move on or prove your assertions.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:31 PM
Jan 2016

This is a discussion, not an event where you bark orders at me. Moore campaigned against Kerry in the Primary. You keep suggesting otherwise to sell your attack on him. Because he favors a different candidate from your own. Jesus.

boston bean

(36,186 posts)
72. this is crazy. I never said what you are saying I did, and i wonder if you have actually read my
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:34 PM
Jan 2016

posts... weird.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
74. I think maybe you did not phrase it well, because you are communicating exactly what I and others
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:12 PM
Jan 2016

are reading. You are claiming Moore supported Kerry in the primary but won't support Clinton in the primary because he's sexist but he strongly opposed Kerry in the primary. Strongly.

That's how primary politics works. You opposed Obama in favor of Hillary in 08, then supported him when he was nominee, right? But the rules are not the same for Moore? If his choice is not nominated, he should not support the nominee, but you are allowed to?

That whole culture of personal destruction is gross. I'm not impressed. 17 years of DOMA is fine with you but you have complaints that Moore supported a nominee he did not support in a primary?

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

brooklynite

(93,838 posts)
57. If u vote against the Brady Bill / say u might change ur mind (after who knows how many people died.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jan 2016

...from gunshots) do u think your reward is the WhiteHouse?

brooklynite

(93,838 posts)
62. Apparently changing your mind after a bad vote is unacceptable...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:03 PM
Jan 2016
The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/
 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
73. How do you change your mind after shock and awe? 'Whoops, that was a fuck up! Now make me President!
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jan 2016

Hillary voted for DOMA and supported it for 17 years. I'm not supporting a primary candidate that denigrated me and mine for her own advantage for so many years. The fact that you are ok with that says much about you, the fact that you can not accept that those who get abused by a politician might not retain affections for that politician demonstrates your view of those abused by that politician.

If Hillary wanted my vote, she should have thought of that when trash talking my rights for so long. It's too late now. If she's the nominee, I'll have to cast a vote for her and I will hold the Party accountable for making me yet again vote for a candidate with an anti equality record. I'm sick of that. And I will not forget it.

retrowire

(10,345 posts)
79. Motives were different.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 05:04 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie: "People shouldn't have to wait so long to get a gun if they want one."

Hilary: "I know the information is a lie and this is a bad idea but let's change up some regimes."

So.... Really... Who voluntarily made their choice KNOWING it would lead to death?

polly7

(20,582 posts)
58. He should add her role in pushing so hard for the destruction of Libya,
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:57 AM
Jan 2016

using CIA trained Al Qaeda 'rebels' and LIES. I don't get why this is being ignored.

in_cog_ni_to

(41,600 posts)
64. Exactly! And the title of his new movie, "Where To Invade Next", doesn't say he's supporting
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:07 PM
Jan 2016

the warmongering candidate, HRH. No way would Michael ever support her.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Something tells me Michae...