Forum Post: Michael Moore: Practice saying 'President Romney'
Posted 12 years ago on Sept. 3, 2012, 3:09 p.m. EST by frogmanofborneo
(602)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Chicago : IL : USA | Sep 03, 2012 at 10:43 AM PDT BY Herbert Dyer, Jr.
On Jan. 20, 2013, when President Obama is forced to watch Williard Mitt Romney “solemnly swear to enforce the Constitution of the United States….,” he will have no one to blame but himself. So says celebrated “liberal” film and documentary maker Michael Moore. And, he is absolutely right.
Moore’s comments may be found in a video interview with the Huffington Post’s webcast. Coming from one of Obama’s most high-profile supporters during the 2008 campaign, and on the eve of the Democratic Party’s National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., this cannot be taken as in any way other than disastrous for Obama and his campaign. “I think people should start to practice the words ‘President Romney,'” Moore said.
Moore offers two basic reasons why he thinks Obama will lose in November:
“To assume that the other side are just a bunch of ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition,” Moore says in the interview.
Obama has turned off so many of his once eager and avid younger fans, followers and voters that they have simply lost the desire to even participate – at any level – in either the campaign or on election day.
As I have written elsewhere, http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12891670-senator-graham-appeals-to-angry-white-guys, registered Democrats certainly out number registered Republicans by a wide margin in this country. But it is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans are much more committed, organized and prepared to squeeze out every single Republican (or potential Republican) vote come Election Day. Their white-hot hatred of Obama has and will continue to focus their zeal “like a laser beam” on assuring his retirement. Many of them realize that this is probably a “make or break” election. That is, that this is the last time a “white majority” may ever be mustered in a national election. And so they want to make sure they get their last licks in. As to the disenchantment of Obama’s former youthful eager-beaver supporters: Moore points to Obama's early, constant and inexplicable “compromises” with Republicans (who were telling him to his face that they hated him). Moore says those unconscionable "compromises" have finally caught up with him. I agree. Obama has governed as though he were still President of Harvard Law Review rather than President of the United States. Sure, he has lately seen the light on a number of issues important to youth, to Hispanics, to gays, to women. But many see these efforts and measures as simple election-year pandering. The man is a terrific campaigner, speaker, promiser of all things good. But what he has shown in office as an executive has been less than stellar, has in fact directly contradicted many of his shiny promises, and has simply turned millions of people off. Enough people, according to Moore, to cost him re-election.
Moore also says that he thinks Democratic politicians understand their precarious position, and are depending on and pinning their hopes on the “lesser of two evils” standard in order to prevail in November. That is, the Republicans are so obviously bad…evil, in fact, that you just gotta keep ‘em away from the levers of power. This scare tactic will only go so far, however.
Again, enough once avid Obama supporters are turned off so as to make the difference (albeit a small difference, but a difference nonetheless) between victory and loss.
Moore said nothing about blacks during his interview. I am saying, however, that the zero percent support Romney has among blacks matters not. If Obama gets 100 percent of the black vote, the question is will the turnout, the raw numbers rather than the percentage, make a difference. And, just like the “youth,” there is a growing number of black people who are disenchanted with this man – for any number of reasons – and will simply not vote at all. Hello, President Romney.
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.
References:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/30/michael-moore-predicts-romney-will-win-in-november/
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-practice-the-words-president-romney/ http://www.examiner.com/article/why-is-michael-moore-predicting-a-romney-win-november
http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-moore-start-practicing-the-words-president-romney/
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/08/30/michael-moore-practice-the-words-president-romney/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014213724
Herbert Dyer, Jr. is based in Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Practice saying "wait" when your kids say "we're hungry." I know that that scenario is already a reality for millions. It is about to become reality for millions more.
Gays practice getting beat up on the streets. I know it still happens but it at least is no longer considered to be a joke or justified. It's going to happen much more.
Get ready to return to the 1950's with no legal abortion or contraception.
Black people, poor people get used to not being able to vote - if you even think it would make a difference.
Unions based on New Deal Labor Law - get ready to say "goodbye." Time perhaps to study the history of the IWW?
At this point I believe Moore is right. It will be president Romney. It's no big deal because he'll be gone in 2016 and his replacement will be gone in 2020.
It's quite a big deal. In either case there needs to be a strong movement outside this electoral system.
[Deleted]
show me
Please pay attention to this video it's important regarding this subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x77DZ4V0tc8&feature=youtu.be
Shhhh.... If you talk like that someone will call you a conspiracy theorist. ;)}
I wonder who Moore is planning on voting for in November.
he got on his knees and asked Nader not to run again
because Nader supposedly took voted from the democrats
and allowed Bush to Win
Funny! Are you sure that's why he was kneeling in front of Nader? I can understand persuasion, but jeez! ;-)
I completely support 3rd party candidates and wish we had more of them to choose from, but in that one particular case in 2000, that is probably true.
the election was rigged then
just as elections are rigged today
how about democrats winning the senate but losing the governorship in the Wisconsin recall?
that doesn't sound like a partisan vote
that sounds like insider bargaining
It was the result of stupidity- Many people who were against Walker, felt that a recall was ONLY valid for criminal actions and voted FOR Walker. Check the data. Some non-government union people voted for Walker.
CRAZY!
interesting
I don't think it was rigged as much as Nader took votes from Gore that would have otherwise allowed Gore to win FL.
And maybe voters in Wisconsin actually based their votes on individual candidates as opposed to voting one party straight down the line. Wisconsin is 38% Dem, 34% Rep and 28% Ind. There are still quite a few people these days who actually take the time to evaluate each individual candidate.
Not true.
http://my.firedoglake.com/jest/2012/08/26/debunking-pathological-myths-of-the-2000-election-part-1-cnn-exit-polls-prove-that-nader-did-not-cost-gore-fl/
Thanks for the link. The author used a lot of assumptions but ultimately used the same exit poll to prove my point.
"Even further, according to exit polls, only 25% of Nader supporters would have voted for Gore had Nader not run. Over half of the Nader voters would have stayed home, and the rest would have voted for Bush or another third party candidate."
So if 25% would have voted for Gore and over 50% would have stayed home, that leaves less than 25% who would vote for Bush or other 3rd party combined. Isn't actual math crazy? The exit polls that this author uses (along with some assumptions based on things that happened in 1996) to supposedly debunk this "myth" actually does a lot more to prove that it is likely true.
LOL You're right. I admit I didn't read it very carefully before . I don't know if the writer misspoke or has poor math skills or ??? The link to the data was a dead link so who knows. I agree with you that extrapolation from the '96 data is rather questionable.
It's been many years since I was looking in to this, but there were so many problems with that election in Florida, - including the fact that the Supreme Court stopped the vote count - I don't think anyone can honestly say who actually got the most votes. It just bothers me that Nader alone has been made the scapegoat. This site talks about some of the other factors if you are interested. http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Of course even if we could know for certain that Nader made the difference, that would be okay with me. He has the right to run. If the Dems couldn't landslide an idiot like George Bush, - twice - perhaps the party should self-examine rather than blame it on Nader.
I agree, that entire thing was a mess. I was a sophomore in college at the time and even in my drunken stupors I realized how messed up it was.
I also agree with your last paragraph. It bothers me that he is blamed because I support 3rd party candidates, will be voting for one this fall, and wish we had even more to chose from.
But that doesn't change the fact that, in my opinion at least and in the opinion of others, Al Gore would have been president if Nader was not on the ballot in Florida. He got almost 100K votes and the state was decide by about 500. Even if the actual votes were not counted very accurately, it might not have mattered because Gore would have probably won by a few thousand votes, making the hanging chads a lot less important.
I think the whole thing though should bring criticism on the electoral college, not on 3rd party candidates. If the President would simply be decided by a simple popular vote we wouldn't have nearly as many problems. I mean just look at the current election cycle, the entire campaign is basically being waged in like 8 states. It is as if the people in the other 42 don't really matter.
who counts the votes ?
Lawyers?
I don't know
not me
not the general public
In my town it is typically 80 year old women. I am sure people of any age can volunteer though.
and who tally the results ?
Michael Moore will be voting for Pres Obama.
If he doesn't pitch a clot first.
Wishful thinking?
Na, I actually enjoy his films.
yeah riiiight!
You seem to equate people being anti-Democrat as also anti-Progressive, which is not true. We just recognize the corporate corruption of both parties. Just because one is not as corrupted as the other does not mean it isn't also very corrupt.
You are mistaken in your attempt to define me. I do not subscribe to your inaccurate description of me.
I see people who are anti dem as serving the repubs during the election season (8 weeks away.)
I am profoundly disappointed w/ dems over the last 30 years. More angry with them than I am with repubs. I expect repubs to serve the 1%. I see the dem votes for conservative policies as a great betrayal.
But I will not attack them now because there is an election in 8 weeks.. I can't tell people vote for dems.
But I do encourage swing staters to replace pro 1% conservatives with pro 99% progressives.
the healthcare was informative
turns out lots of countries are able to offer public healthcare
Except us!
The only solution is declaring an emergency, choosing a healthcare system of another country by referendum, without the Congress and the Senate. Otherwise that bunch of corrupt lizzards will only help their corporate benefactors.
I think if we agitate our given states we can get our state lizzards to request a waiver and create a public option. I believe that is the plan no?
The political system if FUBAR. I am working on a comprehensive plan. It will include declaring an emergency, sending Congress and the Senate home, writing a new constitution, proportional representation like in Europe, and new elections.
Gee that Richardkent is a nasty thing ain't he?
Anyway if you think the corps should be able to lobby and include the referendum as a control mech I will go along.
Good luck in all your good efforts.
(and "don't let the bastards drag you down")
I have learnt the most from the people that did their best to prove me wrong.
I have been wrong many times and I have absorbed all the criticism that had some basis.
I am on the web for 12 years now, and without the critical people on the web it was not possible to write the plan I am writing now.
So if he remains on topic I have no problem with his criticism.
Yeah i like constructive criticism too. I guess I was referring to the "dreamland" insult and his unfair statement that you "conversation was over". But no prob. If you don't mind it's all good.
I don't like encouraging that kind of disrespect and uncivil discourse. Of course I am biased because he has been much worse (obscenities) with me
Anyway, your ideas are good, they are a long shot. But we would be better served by these changes, and they do conform to a new system that includes real direct democracy (referendums).
Good luck in all your good efforts..
It seems a long shot, but there are a number of good reasons to assume that the plan can succeed.
They will be included in the plan, but you can allready find them on the Naturalmoney.org website.
I think I will have something ready within two weeks.
Wow. Sounds hard to implement. How can I help?
The Plan will address the following:
The first of five chapters is finished. The rest will follow soon as I have worked for nearly four years on the solutions and have all the material to write it. If chapter 1 appeals to you, then most of the rest probably will too. Here is the first part:
Introduction
The General Plan for Change is tailored for use in the United States because it is assumed that the opportunity for starting a The Revolution is the best there, but many elements can be used for many other nations as well.
The General Plan for Change consists of the following elements: political reform, economic reform, social reform, the process of change, reasons to accept the plan.
The political reform should concentrate on the following issues:
1.1. Proportional representation
Proportional representation will make every vote count so it is more easy to start up new political parties that can address peoples preferences more accurately. It will also make voter fraud and voter suppression less effective as those tactics only have a marginal influence on the vote count but those effects are greatly amplified by system of the winner takes all. Proportional representation will make spending on political campaigns less effective. Only a relatively small number of voters are influenced by campaigns but the system of the winner takes all can make those numbers decisive. Because of this, the rationale for politically biased redistricting will also disappear.
Proportional representation may also increase voter turnout as people feel better represented in parliament. Currently the United States has one of the lowest turnout rates in the Western world, which is less than 50%. In Western Europe voter turnout rates are often in the 70-90% range. This indicates that people in the United States feel less represented by politicians than people in Europe. Remarkably Swiss voter turnout rates are slightly below 70% but this may be caused by the fact that Switzerland has binding referendums so voters can always assert their power regardless of who is in office.
Another reason for the low voter turnout in the United States is that politicians are bought by special interest groups and corporations. Once the politicians are in office they start to represent the special interest groups and corporations that funded their campaings. In Western Europe the practise of buying politians is less prevalent because in Western Europe individual candidates and political parties spend less on political campaigns.
1.2. Referendums
The essence of democracy is that the people are in control of their government. This is only possible if there is an option to organise a referendum on every possible item. In this way the people can introduce legislation or reject legislation or remove officials from their position. A referendum can solve issues far more efficiently than the political debate. For example, the health care debate in the United States became heated while opponents of the reform claimed to have a majority. A referendum may take the issue of the table so the country can move on.
Often the government has become an oppressive force that is not working in the interest of the people. This can be corrected with a referendum law like there is in Switzerland so the people can overrule any decision made by politicians. If sufficient people support a referendum proposal then the referendum should be held. The government of Switzerland is obliged to act according to outcome of the referendum. In a referendum the people of Iceland voted against repaying international debts incurred by banks and bankers.
In general referendums will not make countries less stable or less governable. Switzerland has a long history of fiscal prudence. In most cases a referendum will lead to the best possible outcome as it makes use of the wisdom of crowds. It may be a good idea to build in safeguards against small minorities starting a referendum about insignificant issues or issues being decided by insignificant turnouts. This may be done by combining referendums, which increases turnout, and introducing a minimum turnout to make the referendum decisive.
It should be possible to request new elections in a referendum. Only with a binding referendum a people can be sure that they are master of their own destiny and that they are not ruled by an elite. A referendum may even make a country more stable as there is no perceived need for strong men to correct an elite gone out of control. Referendums should also be introduced at the state/provincial and local level because on those levels politicians also tend to spend taxpayer's money on their own pet projects.
1.3. Funding of political parties and campaigns
It is better that money does not play an important role in political campaigns. Political parties can better be funded by fixed membership contributions as the only source of income.
The democratic rule is that one person has one vote and that organisations do not have a vote. Consequently is undemocratic that some people or organisations buy influence. This should be avoided. Therefore every member of a political party should pay the same membership fee as the only source of income. Fund raising and campaigning outside those fixed membership fees should be strictly forbidden.
1.4. Ending elections fraud and voter suppression
Elections can only be democratic when the voting process is verifiable and there are no opportunities for fraud. Voting machines can be fraudulently manipulated. Therefore elections should be done without the use of voting machines or using voting machines that are verifiable by leaving a paper trail. The ballots or the paper trail should be retained for a specified period of time.
In many countries there is a population register that is used to send eligible voters a card in the mail. This method is less prone to fraud than registering voters as is currently the practise in the United States. ID requirements and voter registration are now often used as tactics for voter suppression. If ID's are required then ID's must become cheap or mandatory so there is no financial burden on voting.
1.5. Lobbying and activism
Often a small group of politically active people and lobbyists have a large influence on political decisions. A referendum can be helpful in reducing the influence of activists and lobbyists. Lobbying itself cannot be avoided because politicians do not have inside knowledge of different industries and therefore may impose regulation that are not practical. Lobbying should therefore be done openly and meetings of politicians and lobbyists should be open to the public. The meetings should be recorded on tapes available to the public.
1.6. Empty seats in parliament
It may be a good idea to leave a number of seats in parliament empty proportional to the number of blank ballots casted. If blank ballots count then people that are dissatisfied with all political parties have also influence. The number of empty seats in parliament will be a reflection of the dissatisfaction with politics. Not voting can be a reflection of not being interested in politics.
To make laws, there must be a majority. If the majority consists of empty seats then parliament must be disbanded until the next elections. In such a situation there is no government and it is only possible to make laws by referendum. In this way people can choose for self government. The details of such an arrangement should be investigated further as it most likely will raise some serious issues.
1.7. Changing the role of the President
Currently the President and parliament are elected independently. The consequence is that Parliament can obstruct the President and the President can obstruct Parliament. Furthermore the President of the United States has acquired executive powers and he or she does not always have consult parliament to make decisions.
Sounds pretty good.
proportional voting is necessary. End the electoral college, Also I would suggest increasing the # of reps n the House to better provide representation, and help get more 3rd party candidates elected. Shorter open primaries with a runnoff can also help 3rd party access. I think also we need mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.
Referendums Excellent idea, good transition to real direct democracy which I believe is a natural evolution for all democracies.
Funding. Public campaign funding. Yes. no ads! wkly real debates with all candidates.
Lobbying For people and groups representing people, not corps! No money/gifts given to congress. Agree with you transparency.
Empty seats I suppose. Not sure but ok.
Pres role Not sure gotta understand a little better.
Good luck in all your good efforts.
Peace & Solidarity.
Corporations, or representatives of corportations should be allowed to lobby to prevent unpractical legislation from being implemented. Every industry has specific knowledge most politicians do not have. I have heard of many problematic legislation proposals. Lobbying should be possible and done in the open. If the legislation does not suit the citizens then it can be blocked by referendum.
The Plan will be ready within a few weeks I guess. But you must realise that such a plan can only be implemented under emergency conditions, with only a President acting (no corrupt Congress and Senate) while referendum laws should be in place to make sure the President does not abuse his powers.
As in implementation?
Yes. I can show you one part of the implementation, which is overturning the financial system:
http://www.naturalmoney.org/proposal.html
The rest of the implementation can be summarised as follows:
The economic and political system in the United States are broken beyond repair. Only be a revolution can solve this. The oligarchy has taken over the government, the political system, the media and the legal system in the United States. The government extorts taxes from the citizens in order to generate profits for the oligarchs. The US Secret services cooperate with terrorists while at the same time waging a War on Terror. The US government starts wars in order to pillage natural resources in other countries. The US intelligence services are involved in drug trafficking, while at the same time there is a War on Drugs. It is therefore safe to say that United States government has become a criminal operation like the mafia.
Maybe this is interesting too:
2.6. Balancing the budget
The budget of the United States can be balanced in short notice as follows:
The combined savings are 12% of GDP. In the future it should be forbidden for the government to go into debt or print money as the government can either reduce spending or increase taxes. Printing money is a tax by deception. The surplus that arises, should be used to pay down the debt.
2.6.1. A 75% cut in military spending: The United States is spending more on the military than the next fourteen largest military spending countries combined. With a 75% cut in military spending the United States will still be able to defend its interests, but it will not be able to project power to all corners of the globe.
2.6.2. Copying a European public health care system: The United States spends 15% of GDP on health care, while the average in the European union is around 9% so 6% of GDP could be saved. Furthermore, life expectancy in the European Union on average is higher than in the United States so the health care systems in the Europan Union on average probably are more effective. Even life expectancy in a poor country like Cuba is higher than in the United States. Therefore the health care system of the United States is ineffective (costly and having poor results).
2.6.3. Ending interest payments on government debt: Ending interest payments on debts is a consequence of implementing Natural Money. Because with Natural Money money supply does not increase, the interests of the creditors are safeguarded as the value of the money will stop falling.
2.6.4. Implementing Natural Money will increase government income: The holding fee on Natural Money will generate income for the government. Because of the faster circulation of money, government income on regular taxes will also increase. Because there is no money printing economic growth will eventually produce lower prices. Government income will therefore increase, but the amount is unknown. This can be reduced for paying down debt and tax reduction.
2.6.5. Increased employment will reduce government spending on benefits: Increased employment will reduce government spending on unemployment benefits and food stamps. As the general level of poverty reduces, all kinds of government assistance for poor people will be needed less.
When unemployment is gone, it is possible to increase minimum wages and benefits for people that are not able to work. The savings can be used to reduce taxes or pay down government debt.
400 or less - that is easy - the government can print all the money it needs to make the economy function at full employment - if it has it's own sovereign currency - should i go on?
Then the answer is no. You have no plan for implementation because alternative currencies are illegal. You can live in dreamland if you want but your conversation is a dead end.
That is one more reason why you should declare an emergency.
Has he actually said that? I don't follow Michael Moore much. Seen a few of his movies, that's about it. I would assume he would vote Dem, though.
You are correct to assume his dem support. But yes I have heard him express his support and vote. And listen he is expressing this frustration with Obamas supporters because he wanst to wake people up. That is also an indication.
what I read
Mike expressed his disappointment in Obama not listening to his own supporters
Yeah. He says Obama should not have compromised so much with conservatives. Why did Obama do that?
to support the banks and corps that supported him?
Oh! I thought he was trying to cooperate in an effort to improve the nature of politics in DC. No?
I mean they didn't try to reward the banks & corps when they did fin & hlth reform. & the banks & corps have been squealin like pigs about how they hate even the weakened (by repubs) reforms he signed so I don't think that is why he did it.
as George Carleton said
"it congress really wants to screw us over, that a bipartisan action"
& George Carlin too!
oh right
“The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out”
Bingo.
What is conjectured in this post is not far off - if it is off at all in the perception of a failed effort so far by our current President. He could have and he should have put his foot down from his 1st moment in office and the gotten more serious as time went by. He should have been bloodying noses and perhaps he should have looked into more serious things as the rebellion in government continued and worsened and hardened.
Now we will see how many Americans will have recognised the obstructionism that happened and how many will vote in response to that and then we will see also how many were disenchanted by the lackluster term in office and so not vote or vote third party.
Don't listen to the Obama sure winner predictors - this race is not at all secured for the current President.
One thing that he could have suggested to Harry Reid is to actually force the Republicans to filibuster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX8aFpnWxPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hphgHi6FD8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfZpd-luEsA&feature=related