2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSomething tells me Michael Moore won't be voting for Hillary
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/690836319770185729
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)on January 23, 2016
That's so yesterday.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Something about that just doesn't scream I support Hillary to me.
reddread
(6,896 posts)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.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Mmmm, guess not.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Almost all have failed. At least they are consistent.
dsc
(52,129 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)So interesting.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)was different than it really is. Too bad for you.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Nobody could have fully appreciated back then just how much of a stupid decision it actually was.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You had to be a complete sucker, an idiot or a warmonger to have been clueless.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)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?
dsc
(52,129 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)This tweet is pandering.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)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)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but it would appear the primaries aren't over, yet. Who knew?
caraher
(6,276 posts)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)and begging Nader not to run in '04, so I suspect he learned his lesson.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)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)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)It's completely upside down thinking, but a primary campaign against her is apparently anti-Party.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)But are all high up on the principle when a woman is running.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's misogyny, clearly!
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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)about you, unless you make it so.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So whatever it is you believed it was that you were saying, probably that.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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)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)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)Don't you worry though. I do the shit I feel like doing to or I don't.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but .... what is it? "do continue".
boston bean
(36,186 posts)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)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)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)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?
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)boston bean
(36,186 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If that goes, well...
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This being the primary and all.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)posts... weird.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Lawud
(70 posts)He couldn't have said it better.
No war mongers in the White House
brooklynite
(93,838 posts)...from gunshots) do u think your reward is the WhiteHouse?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)brooklynite
(93,838 posts)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)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)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)using CIA trained Al Qaeda 'rebels' and LIES. I don't get why this is being ignored.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)the warmongering candidate, HRH. No way would Michael ever support her.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed