Anyone planning on seeing the new Michael Moore movie?

I am, but am also heeding Mom's warnings about potential violence. So far, showtimes have not yet been announced.

Fahrenheit 11/9 is his new movie. I will wait for the free HBO version.

I have found that while I agree 98% of the time with Mr. Moore's positions on the environment and such, I have found his movies to be as much about celebrating his movie production prowess as the movies are to promulgating a progressive voice.
____________________________________________________________________
Side note: He needs to lose #75 and dress better to be taken much more seriously.

He's definitively as much of an entertainer, as he is an investigative reporter.

Hi Jehanne and Miki,

I've heard of this guy, he must be quite old now surely? A bit of a conspiracy nut, or am I wrong? I was going to say was there not a book of that name, but then remembered Miki's signature, ithe book was Fahrenheit 451.... the temperature paper burns or combusts automatically or something.

Celia xx

MichaelaSJ wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore

He is 64 and wears every pound like he is 84.

Mind you, I think he is more self-serving than informative, he is very informative in a re-hashing sort of presentation and his exposés do have merit and are worth watching.

Yes Miki, I kinda looked him up and remember him better now, he deals in exposing stuff. Worth watching, though I have a sneaky feeling he does it for the bananias. And he always seemed a little too far left wing for my liking. Celia xx

In Europe, conservative (EU) = liberal (US).

Jehanne wrote:In Europe, conservative (EU) = liberal (US).

This needs some 'splaining. Lucy

Michael Moore, the guy who wants to ban guns from transwomen so that more can be killed by random, retarded bigots.

MichaelaSJ wrote:

Jehanne wrote:In Europe, conservative (EU) = liberal (US).

This needs some 'splaining. Lucy

I saw it on a documentary, once; some parliamentarian from Sweden was talking about it. Basically, the "conservatives" in Europe want to maintain the status quo (progressive taxation, universal health-care, limited military, no death penalty, etc.), things which liberals here in the US would like to have established!

Ah, I get your point.

The left wing is the wing against the status quo - therefore the left wing in Soviet Russia was not the communists, it was the faction of the country that wanted, and got change.

But now that the status quo has shifted and the left wing is the people who want to rid themselves of the now conservative right wing.

In the U.S. the conservatives (the right) want the status quo and the liberals (the left) want to change that. In the U.S. we have always had a conservative wing.

In 1787 they began calling themselves the Federalists. This was the first United States political party. In 1796, anti-Federalists gathered around Jefferson. Members of Jefferson's group called themselves Democratic-Republicans. Northern businessmen, bankers, and merchants supported the Federalists. They believed in a strong national (or federal) government. Federalists held that capital and industry were the basis of a healthy republic and that the federal government should act to protect the country's infant industries. The Democratic-Republican Party drew its followers from planters, small farmers, and artisans.

After the U.S. Civil War there began a schism in the Democratic party where the farmers of the South (the Dixiecrats) eventually broke off from the Northern Democrats who were workers, shopkeepers and artisans. Eventually, after WWII and the nascent Civil Rights movement the Dixiecrats migrated the Republican Party who had assumed the role of the original Federalists.

So, the U.S. conservatives are actually the UN-left party vÍs-a-vÍs the EU definition.

It was actually some southern Democrat in the 60s who added an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex in the hopes of sinking that piece of legislation, but in the end, the law was passed!

In Europe the Democrats would considered right wing and conservative. The Republicans are very right wing.

That's a problem for poorer Americans because nobody represents them. So they voted for a populist like Trump because they've been propagandised that any form of socialism is Communist. But then again Bernie Sanders showed there is an appetite for change as much as Trump does.
In Britain the Conservative party is lurching to right and the Labour party is heading down the towards Marxism. The British as a people will tolerate neither ideology. So something will give.
Here in Ireland the two main parties are conservative in the European sense. The main difference between them is that one beat the other in the civil war. The left is widely divided but the threat is from Sinn Fein who also lost the war and are lefties but haven't lost the former terrorists among their ranks. But they might hold the balance of power. I detest them.

Politics sure shows how labels are often pointless and can't manage international potential.

Reps vs Dems. Whatever.
Liberals vs PCs (Canada). Whatever.
I see my dad post about politicians in England, and the labels mystify me (so I just never comment on his posts).

Justin is a Liberal. I'm not sure I like Liberals. But, I like Justin. I think a lot slag him because he's a Liberal, and not because he's himself.

I'm ok slagging Hillary, as a party member, not sure I like her as a person.
But oh man, I'm ok slagging off Trump as a Rep, as a business person, as a man, and as a human.
I've never met a politician with so little value. I can even find some worth in famous historical bad guys politicians easier than with Trump.

There is no definition of a political party in the U.S. Constitution and the States are left to decide how a vote is cast and who is able to cast a vote. George Washington, in his wisdom, suggested that the nascent U.S. stay away from political parties, but alas, that message was not heard.

Yes, there is an amendment 'allowing' a woman to vote and another amendment reducing the voting age to 18 (I mean, how can you send a teenager off to war [Vietnam] and not give him the right to vote, sheeesh).

The Equal Rights Amendment, giving women an equal footing with men is stalled with only 34 states voting to ratify.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act removes most obstacles to voting by minorities, but the states can still gerrymander to their hearts content until their vote is virtually meaningless. The numbers of votes cast for Democratic candidates invariably exceed the number of votes for a Republican candidate by a significant percentage, yet the representation in State and National assemblies is lopsided with a disproportionate number of Republican representatives.

There is always talk about a third party, but there are tremendous barriers to the creation of a third party. In past WWII history, only two candidates mounted effective third party candidates, George Wallace and Ross Perot mounted candidates that moved the needle on the election results. Third party candidates in the past several presidential elections cost the Democratic candidates election to the presidency. Ralph Nader's votes in Florida would certainly have been used by Al Gore to win the presidency. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson MAY have garnered enough votes to cause Clinton to lose the election.

Perot and Wallace where essentially right of the GOP and ran as opposition to what they saw as a movement towards the center of the GOP party vÍs-a-vÍs racial inclusion (Wallace) and runaway spending (Perot). John Kennedy would have lost his election in 1960 if the Wallace vote had been cast for Nixon. Bill Clinton would have lost his 1992 election if the Perot vote had been cast for George H W Bush.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." ... Will Rogers

I personally believe a focused, really focused Democratic party will capture a significant percentage of the votes in any national election.

But, the Democrats will never come up with a consolidated message. I am as much a socialist progressive as Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but I know that their message, while enticing, will never fly because they offer no way to pay for their 'gives'.

As long as money controls the message, the right wing/conservative/libertarian business oriented party will always challenge the Democratic message and will win - because socialism is communism and it is still better to be dead than red.

As wrong a that message is, the left/Democrats do not have a consolidated message to counter the right's message.

“I got a letter the other day from a woman. She said, ‘I don’t want government-run health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. And don’t touch my Medicare.’”...Barack Obama

I think the biggest threat my Country faces now is a concerted effort to pack the SCOTUS with libertarian judges such as Kavanaugh whose soul purpose is to remove government from the social landscape. Yes Roe is going to be threatened and likely overturned given the chance but that will be the least of the left's problems.

Voting rights will be further eroded. Envirnomental laws and regulations will be emasculated. Religions will gain a solid foothold in the social fabric endangering LGB...T rights. Free speech and a Free Press will be throttled.

Yes, Roe will impact the lives of everyone and specifically women, but without a voice, the right-wing/libertarian agenda will simply steamroll dissent.

If you want to see where this Nation is heading look at the Koch Brothers and their ilk and understand their position on laissez-faire business. Thier absolute goal is to have everything and their money is allowing them just that.

Laissez-faire is an economic system in which transactions between private parties are free from government interference such as regulations, privileges, tariffs, and subsidies. The phrase laissez-faire is part of a larger French phrase and literally translates to "let (it/them) do", but in this context usually means to "let go".

My Wife and I are both in our seventies. My Son is 51 and Daughter is 40. They have chosen not to have children. Are voices will be muted in a generation or so. The current generations are either comfortable and don't see what is coming or are so uncomfortable as to only see desperation in their futures.

Yes, there is noise in the polls that says the now voting generation is dissatified with what is happening, but will they really get up from the couches and vote this Novemeber. We can only hope so,

We can only hope so.

In the 1840s, the potato crop failed in Ireland. People began to starve. But the political system at the time in Britain was of the laissez-faire system. Government interference would only make it worse was the logic. So a Million died and a million emigrated. In any case the Irish had it coming.
Does anyone recognise anything there?
Ironic really that Paul Ryan, whose Irish ancestors were forced to emigrate because of the that attitude should hold to that same position.
The attitude that the poor are poor because they deserve it.
Rather pitiless don't you think?

Miki, the voting systems of the UK, USA and I believe Iceland are the most archaic in the entire world. They never had a real internal revolution late enough to change. The UK where I live is ridiculous, a party could theoretically get ten million votes and not win a seat. That in a parliament of 650 seats in a nation of about 48 million voters. I think the USA is as backward when a President Elect with less votes gets to be President. People like Ross Perot, pumping the full amount in had no chance. The two party system like the UK and USA is unhealthy too, I venture.

Celia xx

mariehart1 wrote:In the 1840s, the potato crop failed in Ireland. People began to starve. But the political system at the time in Britain was of the laissez-faire system. Government interference would only make it worse was the logic. So a Million died and a million emigrated.

One of my paternal Great Grandmothers survived the Gorta Mór as a child and I think the experience steeled her to find a successful life as an Irish immigrant to the U.S. She sailed from whatever Irish port she embarked from all the way around The Horn to San Francisco in the mid 1880s.

With very little money she purchased a piece of waterfront in Oakland, CA that is now known as Jack London Square. One of her sons is a character in Jack London's The Sea Wolf. Jack London's success as a writer was in some small part due to my Great Grandmother's investments in her new home. My Father would sit at Jack London's feet as a child while he told his stories in some of the waterfront saloons of the day.

My Great Grandmother went on to finance several retail establishments in Oakland. They are long since gone but her simply being here created opportunities for many.

mariehart1 wrote:In any case the Irish had it coming.

Almost any ethnic group that suffered a fate similar to the Gorta Mór had it coming - because they are not one of us and dammit, we got here first.

mariehart1 wrote:Ironic really that Paul Ryan, whose Irish ancestors were forced to emigrate because of the that attitude should hold to that same position.
The attitude that the poor are poor because they deserve it.
Rather pitiless don't you think?

People like Ryan find it convenient to ignore their heritage. One of the most strident anti-immigrants, Ted Cruz wasn't even born in the U.S. Although he is a citizen by his mother's birth, he is native of Canada. (Do the travails of Obama come to mind?)

The white population in the U.S. is underperforming in the birth rate race. They are not producing enough progeny to maintain their current population level and they complain when immigrants come to the U.S. to replace what their children should have been capable of assuming - a growth rate adding to, not depleting our gross national product. But they are not replacing themselves at a rate that will maintain their privilege - and they know it.

But hey! They don't look like me, or talk like me, or believe the same magical being as me and they live in their own little communities, barrios or ghettos if you will.

And some get sick and some don't work but for the most part these immigrants are healthy, educated, with a good work ethic and they, more so than their white counterparts, are willing to invest whatever they have to improve the lot of their families and their communities and their new found home - the United States.

Celia Eriksson wrote:Miki, the voting systems of the UK, USA and I believe Iceland are the most archaic in the entire world.

I am not familiar with the UK or Iceland systems - but, yes the U.S. is archaic and not a real representation of the voting public at large.

The vote for our president is conducted under something called the Electoral College. Each state is assigned a number of electors equal to the number of Senator and Congress members that the state has. When the election is held, regardless of the vote, if a candidate garners the most votes in a particular state, then he/she has the electoral votes to be voted at the Electoral College.

The basic problem with this kluge of a system is that if one candidate will an upset in a state with 'X' Electoral College votes, he/she may lose to a candidate that barely wins two states and the candidates electoral votes for those two states may total more than the other single state's number.

This is why Clinton lost and Trump won. Clinton lost Michigan by 16,000 votes but Trump picked up 16 electoral votes. A similar situation happened in Pennsylvania where Clinton lost by 66,000 votes but Trump garnered all 20 electoral votes.

This Electoral College is enshrined in our Constitution and is a result of the grand bargain relating to the slave owning states not be out voted by the more populace northern states in the late 1780s.

It will be virtually impossible to change as it would require a constitutional amendment and the smaller population farming states will NEVER give up their hold on the presidential election.

If Clinton had chosen to campaign in both Michigan and Pensylvania she should have won both states handily and the number of electoral college votes would switched from 232 to 268 and Trump's number would have dropped from 306 to 270. Yes with only these two states Trump would still have one, but Clinton blew it in several other traditionally blue states. It was Clinton's election to win and she blew it.

But we do have a fucked up system for picking the titular head of the world.

My wife is going, tonight; hopefully, there will be more than the typical one police officer there.

not a fan of his work.

My wife and I saw it yesterday; I learned some things that I never knew (especially, The Donald's fetish with respect to his daughter!)

Jehanne wrote:...(especially, The Donald's fetish with respect to his daughter!)

Aside from his one comment about "...if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps, I would be dating her.” what was in the movie.

While I believe that one admission to be gross, I think it was a gross way of saying how beautiful his daughter is at the same time saying he is the best thing to happen to a woman, any woman.

I have 2 daughters; the pics that DT had with him and his daughter were, IMO, kind of "sexual". Maybe it is in the transwomen within me, but, it made me feel awkward at best. Not the sort of stuff that I would want in a future President, but, that's really the tip of the iceberg for someone like DT, as far as I am concerned at least.