RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Moore writes: "We can't wait until January 20th to fight back. That has to start NOW. Start with this mantra: 'He Shall Not Enter the Oval Office!' I know. A crazy thought. But crazy times demand crazy thoughts! Stop listening to the 'rational adults' who keep saying 'the electoral college is the law!'"

Filmmaker Michael Moore, near a closed factory in Flint, Michigan, where his father worked. (photo: Fabrizio Costantini/NYT)
Filmmaker Michael Moore, near a closed factory in Flint, Michigan, where his father worked. (photo: Fabrizio Costantini/NYT)


We Can't Wait Until January 20th to Fight Back

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

26 November 16

 

appy Thanksgiving everyone! Yes, there's so much to be thankful for these days -- and I'll give you that list as soon as I can come up something beyond 1) we're alive, 2) the sun rose in the east this morning, and 3) this adorable video of a baby who stole an iPhone while it was recording https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ3Roar7J7Q&sns=em

But seriously, we're all getting ready to sit down for Thanksgiving dinner in a few minutes and, well, in many homes (i.e., white homes), we're perhaps facing World War III at the table. There's the misogynist uncle, the racist cousin, the Libertarian brother-in-law and, yes, your own dear mother who was one of the 46% of women who somehow inexplicably voted for Trump. They're all coming to the table now and you are going to do your best to keep your cool.

Or not. Maybe this is actually a good time to say, "I love you, I'm so glad we're all family, and I don't want to argue politics today. Instead, if you don't mind, the majority of us here at the table - just like the majority of the country - voted for Hillary, so we're going to talk amongst ourselves for a few minutes about what we need to do to stop Trump in the coming weeks and months."

And then start talking with each other about what we need to do. Here's 5 things to discuss:

1. We can't wait until January 20th to fight back. That has to start NOW. Start with this mantra: "He Shall Not Enter the Oval Office!" I know. A crazy thought. But crazy times demand crazy thoughts!Stop listening to the "rational adults" who keep saying "the electoral college is the law!" So was forcing Blacks to sit at the back of the bus. I know this seems impossible at this point. But so was convincing the all-male legislatures in three dozen states to give women the right to vote. So was the Cubs winning the World Series. Sometimes miracles do happen. Why not start with that hope/dream/delusion? It's better than doing nothing -- and sometimes a Hail Mary pass works.

2. Form your own Rapid Response Team with your family and friends, in your neighborhood, at work, or at school. 5 to 30 people (times a million) who will demand a recount in the close states, get their states to pass the National Popular Vote law http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/, appeal to the electors of the electoral college to abide by the popular vote (or their conscience) and demonstrate, demonstrate, demonstrate!

3. During the holiday break, make a plan now take some friends and visit the local office of your member of Congress to give him/her a piece of your mind. Tell them - especially the Democrats - that if they don't aggressively oppose what Trump plans to do you will work with others to run a progressive against them in the 2018 primary -- just like the Tea Party did to the Republicans they tossed out in 2010-2014.

4. Each of you write to the Democratic National Committee today https://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact and tell them the DNC needs new leadership. Support Rep. Keith Ellison's bid to become chair of the party https://www.thenation.com/…/keith-ellison-is-the-leader-th…/.

5. Make a plan right now at the dinner table that we're all going to Washington, DC, on Inauguration Day (Friday, January 20th) to protest the ascendancy of a narcissistic sociopath who lost the vote for the highest office in the land. Millions are going to show up to say NO to what he's planning to do. Let's all plan to get in the car (or buy a cheap plane/bus ticket) and be there! Who's driving? Aunt Betty? Cousin Camille? Joey, you pay for the gas! Everybody in the car!

There! We did something other than eat stuffing and argue! We were Americans on this American holiday! Now, stop ignoring the Trump voters at the table and go back to talking about something they're interested in, like beating the crowds on Black Friday. (It also gives you a chance to say the word "Black" just one more time).

Happy Thanksgiving! -- Michael Moore

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+138 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 14:02
And when you write to the DNC be sure to tell them that you are well aware of the disgusting fraud they perpetrated on their constituents by forcing a highly unpopular corporatist hawk on the electorate via fraud and disenfranchisem ent thereby depriving the American people of a modern day FDR.

The "Democratic" party and the Clintons are totally to blame for whatever happens in the Trump Presidency!
 
 
+57 # Femihumanist 2016-11-26 14:32
I agree
 
 
+57 # MidwesTom 2016-11-26 15:02
The choice of Clinton elected Trump.
 
 
+23 # dyannne 2016-11-26 15:13
Hillary Clinton is only unpopular with sexists and those who have listened to the mainstream media who have pilloried her for 20-30 years with lies and damn lies. She never murdered anyone. She's not a lesbian. She didn't ignore Benghazi. She didn't swindle anyone at Whitewater. She is NOT a crook. But Donald Trump IS. Hillary Clinton is well-liked, and even well-loved by many. She WON the popular vote. And now that there's a recount we will likely find EVEN MORE votes for Hillary Clinton. So go stuff a turkey leg in your lyin mouths.
 
 
+69 # Working Class 2016-11-26 15:55
No -both Clintons are unpopular with this progressive because they are part of the neoliberal corporate cabal that diverted the Democratic Party into a party chasing Wall Street donations while turning their backs on the ever shrinking middle class. If we had the Dem Party of FDR a Trump Presidency would not be possible.
 
 
+41 # librarian1984 2016-11-26 16:09
You've cited GOP criticisms of Clinton. Critics from the left are concerned about her connections to Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, and her hawkishness.

Clinton supporters ignored HRC's neoliberal, militaristic beliefs, but not everyone turned a blind eye, particularly as she regularly broadcast her intent to focus on military interventions.

Clinton did not talk about jobs or economic issues, despite advice to do so, that drove many people to Trump. She insulted millennials, progressives and Trump supporters and hired trolls against members of her own party.

There were plenty of reasons not to vote for Clinton. She was under four separate FBI investigations while running and implicated in the sabotage of Sen. Sanders' campaign.

She made millions in secret speeches and the family reaped millions from the foundation that bears her name -- even when she was Secretary of State.

Yes, Clinton IS a cheat, a liar, a crook and a murderer. She was a poor candidate who couldn't beat the worst candidate most of us have ever seen, even with the collusion of the media and many of her opponent's base.

Clinton is well loved by no one but she was endorsed by Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz. She was supported by those who voted for a uterus and those who would benefit from her administration, like arms manufacturers.

One doesn't need to be a sexist to decide HRC would be an embarrassment to women and would set feminism back.
 
 
+14 # hipocampelo 2016-11-26 16:34
You get both ears and the tail librarian1984
I couldn't have phrased it better myself.
You never cease to amaze. Kudos.
 
 
+10 # Lud Themperton 2016-11-26 16:59
I don't believe she's more of a liar than most of them, and whom did she murder? She and Bill have been villainized for decades because they're good at what they do, and the GOP needed to stop them. Four FBI probes now look like GOP tricks. Your charges - the murderer one, the 4 FBI investigations, the making too much money, the set feminism back, and those others, sound like villainizing by troll. The FBI is not so pure any more.
 
 
+23 # candida 2016-11-26 17:43
Thank you, Lud, for inserting some rationality into the hysterics of Hillary-haters. One recent RSN article about fact-checking the candidates' statements said 68% of Trump's statements were false compared to 10% of Clinton's. (Don't have the reference. Can anyone please supply this?) 10% is probably less than the average person.

But the neo-fascist propaganda of the right-wing has infected the minds of even so-called progressives, if we are to take people here on RSN at face value (a big IF!). I would have to agree that anyone still peddling the widely discredited Faux News & Co. accusation that the Clintons killed Vince Foster must be a troll.
 
 
+15 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 19:47
candida...regar dless of some media outlet's percentage analysis of her false claims against Trump's false claims the fact remains that even if you ignore everything else...she conspired with the DNC to destroy Bernie Sanders' campaign and engaged in dirty tricks and election theft to a degree that would have made Richard Nixon ashamed.

Why would anyone accept a person of such low moral character to be our President?
 
 
+2 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 20:59
Do you have any real proof Hillary herself actually conspired with anyone to steal the primary from Sanders or she ordered or approved it being done? I think you are working in the realm speculation like the
GOP did with the Vincent Foster claims. Really unacceptable to honest communications.
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-29 19:17
Yes I am sure that she would be : "Shocked! Shocked."
(As said by Claude Raines in Casablanca.)
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:41
She lies reflexively about things that wouldn't matter if she hadn't lied about them. It is just impossible to trust someone with kind of pathological problem.
 
 
+2 # shulie 2016-11-28 19:16
That describes Trump.
 
 
+7 # candida 2016-11-26 17:30
Quoting librarian1984:
She was supported by those who voted for a uterus and those who would benefit from her administration, like arms manufacturers.

One doesn't need to be a sexist to decide HRC would be an embarrassment to women and would set feminism back.


No, one does not need be a sexist to have opposed Clinton, but your many rants against her are, case in point, "She was supported by those who voted for a uterus."

I seriously doubt the fortunes of Raytheon and Northrop Grumman would have risen more than 20% and 40%, respectively, as they did when Trump won the election. Pretty odd market dynamics for someone you believe will be less a hawk than Clinton, not to mention the many military brass he is reportedly interviewing for high posts. I think the investors are more pragmatic and clear-eyed on this issue than you, librarian.

btw, librarian, I saved this just for you. I imagine you will dismiss it along with all the other evidence and logical argumentation presented to you, but perhaps you will at least be compelled to take a listen since it is a short interview with Noam Chomsky about the president-elect by Al Jazeera. I'm happy to have this occasion to share it with the RSN readership.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB54XxbgI0E
 
 
+32 # JCM 2016-11-26 19:30
She beat trump by over 2 million votes and would have won, along with many senate and house seats except for the republican Interstate Crosschecking System. Why aren't we doing something about it? The election was stolen. I didn't realize until I read Greg Palast article on it. The election was stolen and will continue to be stolen. Be very angry!
 
 
+28 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 19:50
JCM....be sure to see Greg Palast's new film and share it with everyone you know.
We will never have honest government in this country until we have honest elections!
 
 
+2 # JCM 2016-11-26 19:57
grandlakeguy: OK, will do. Thanks
 
 
0 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 19:42
Thank you librarian, VERY well put!
 
 
0 # Eliza D 2016-11-28 12:27
This is non-responsive to Moore's call for action. What are you going to do?
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-03 23:01
Investigations by Comey, who violated the Hatch Act to hand Trump the presidency, that FBI?
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:40
Geez, you do have your head in the sand.
 
 
+4 # Thomas0008 2016-11-27 01:33
#dyanne "Hillary Clinton is only unpopular with sexists and those who have listened to the mainstream media who have pilloried her for 20-30 years with lies and damn lies." --------------- --------------- ------------ I Don't know what you are smoking, but I sure as hell don't want any of it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
 
 
-1 # markovchhaney 2016-11-27 04:21
Bilge
 
 
-4 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 20:43
I do not think total blame is right unless you can prove Sanders would have beaten trump in the general election.
Some blame has to be shared by the "Sander or bust no vote" or those who voted for Stein no matter how principled they thought they were being on the possibility their voting could have made a difference..
 
 
+13 # mashiguo 2016-11-27 00:27
Blaming Clinton's loss on people who didn't want to vote for Clinton is a tautology and devoid of meaning.

The Bernie or Bust people owed Clinton nothing. She did everything possible to alienate them. She was arrogant and unrealistic in believing they would support her. She earned what she deserved.
 
 
+8 # dipierro4 2016-11-27 02:15
Mashiguo said, "...The Bernie or Bust people owed Clinton nothing...She was arrogant...She earned what she deserved."

IMHO it should not be a question of whether we (the Bernie people) owe Clinton anything, or whether she got what she deserved. I'd think that one should vote for the person who might do the most good, or the least harm, to all of us. Am I missing something??

There might be a difference of opinion as to whom to vote for. I voted for Stein myself, but others differed, for good reasons.
 
 
+6 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-27 19:10
We did vote for the personthat would do the most good...Bernie Sanders.
When the corrupt DNC and their dishonest pre-ordained candidate engaged in election theft to thwart the will of the electorate THAT was the moment that Hillary Clinton lost!
 
 
-5 # tonywicher 2016-11-27 11:48
I would have gladly voted for Sanders, but after what the Democratic Party did to him, I voted for Trump, and I'm glad I did. I'll take the blame. Hillary was headed straight for nuclear war with Russia. If we don't have a nuclear war in the next four years, I'm taking the credit!
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-03 23:03
Quoting tonywicher:
I would have gladly voted for Sanders, but after what the Democratic Party did to him, I voted for Trump, and I'm glad I did. I'll take the blame. Hillary was headed straight for nuclear war with Russia. If we don't have a nuclear war in the next four years, I'm taking the credit!

Nonsense.
 
 
+2 # sashapyle 2016-11-28 09:59
Many people who voted for Trump would have preferred Bernie. There was some overlap in their message, and this year there was a powerful thirst for that message. The difference? Bernie meant it. And didn't have a history of being a selfish scumbag.
 
 
+11 # Vardoz 2016-11-26 20:56
I believe it's the Oligarchy. There has been a consistent trend and that is no liberal or Progressive candidate will be permitted to win the presidency. They were afraid that Sanders would have too much influence on HRC so Trump stole the election. Gore, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Kerry we all defeated by election fraud. The only reason Obama won was because Giethner and Summers ( Wall St ) was on his team and look what he did. Denied our right to due process. Did not raise the minimum wage, wanted the TPP, did nothing about poverty. Now half the nation is living in poverty, promoted massive fracking and oil drilling, launched more drone strikes than Bush. I do believe he was just taking orders to some extent and I know the GOP was blocking him. But our senate could have used the same tricks to block legislation that the GOP did when the Democrats had both houses like the secret hold. But he and the Democrats didn't.
 
 
+1 # vt143 2016-11-27 06:50
Amen
 
 
-1 # RnR 2016-11-29 06:03
I think the decision to force Hillary Clinton on us was made knowing full well that Trump would beat her. It was a common goal of the real ptb's to prevent any grain of liberal thought from becoming policy.

I think they knew and it was done deliberately.
 
 
+51 # Woratnac 2016-11-26 14:39
Absolutely. I'll be in DC marching against the orange idiot on Inauguration Day.
 
 
+45 # silverbullet 2016-11-26 14:57
Democrats are often fond of claiming that third party candidates are 'spoilers'. Well, I think this year HRC was the real 'spoiler' for our country.
 
 
-15 # dyannne 2016-11-26 15:14
And I think you drank the right wing kool-aid.
 
 
+59 # Jim Rocket 2016-11-26 15:39
The Democrats had the winning player but they kept him on the bench.
 
 
+2 # JCM 2016-11-26 19:35
If Bernie instead of Hillary ran, the republicans would have stolen more votes to steal the election from him. The new normal. Be very angry.
 
 
+12 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:45
There is a point beyond which they cannot steal. Candidates that generate a lot of enthusiasm get past that point as Obama did and as Bernie would have. Even a lot of the people who clearly thought she was better by Trump going down the checklist could not gather up the energy to actually go out and vote for her.
 
 
+2 # JCM 2016-11-26 20:02
Yes and no. Yes there can be a limit to their cheating. However, they will be in control of everything and will have the ability to purge votes without a hesitation. No is that Hillary has almost as many votes as Obama did in 2012. But to be fair, I think if Bernie had won the primary we might have had a better turnout but the results might not have changed as hundreds of thousands of votes were purged.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-03 23:05
Quoting JCM:
If Bernie instead of Hillary ran, the republicans would have stolen more votes to steal the election from him. The new normal. Be very angry.

And they would have played the Socialist=Commi e card..... no matter that it is ignorant.
 
 
+12 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 19:51
It was worse than that Mr. Rocket...they threw Bernie under the bus driven by Debbie Wasserman Schultz with Hillary Clinton giving the directions!
 
 
+23 # REDPILLED 2016-11-26 16:34
Get real, Dyanne.

Hillary's foreign policy record is saturated with the blood of innocents.

Her crimes against Iraq, Honduras, Libya, and war-mongering against Syria and Russia are war crimes.

She rarely reached out to the struggling people barely surviving in the so-called "flover states" and Rust Belt.

Then she and her DNC co-conspirators cheated Bernie Sanders, the only candidate who led ALL the creepy Rethuglican monsters (excuse the redundancies), out of the nomination.

Take your pro-Hillary, pro-Democrat blinders off and wake up!
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-03 23:07
Secretaries of State, like most appointments "serve at the pleasure of the President". Do WTFU.
She was not an independent actor.
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-11-26 17:05
You seem to be an expert on Kool-Aid(TM)!
 
 
+45 # tedrey 2016-11-26 15:16
Let's see; the idea is to take the win away from one of the most disliked candidates in American history and give it to the other one.

Without first getting an explanation of what her campaign did to Sanders' campaign--

Without clarifying her ties to Wall Street, Big Carbon, or the War Industry--

Without prior guarantees as to who her cabinet picks will be--

Without asertaining whether her goals will be the ones on the Bernie platform or the ones she consistently campaigned on for a year before that--

Oh, I see where you're coming from. No thanks.

By January 20th, No Trump, No Clinton. If that means No President until we have an honestly elected one, the better for all of us.
 
 
+19 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:48
It is the issue of election fraud that is important here, not Trump vs. Clinton. Either way we lose, but maybe we can generate some support for reforms through this process that will pay off in the long run.
 
 
-44 # Marshalldoc 2016-11-26 15:31
Michael Moore's credibility as an avowed 'progressive' is just about on a par with Sanders'... Both shilled for the corporatist, pro-war, NeoCon, Neoliberal, Wall Street 1%'ers when they should have been in the trenches with Jill Stein fighting for a better world and the greater good rather than choosing the lesser evil. Mike, why don't you just go back to Flint and start replacing lead pipes with something non-toxic?
 
 
+25 # reiverpacific 2016-11-26 16:07
Quoting Marshalldoc:
Michael Moore's credibility as an avowed 'progressive' is just about on a par with Sanders'... Both shilled for the corporatist, pro-war, NeoCon, Neoliberal, Wall Street 1%'ers when they should have been in the trenches with Jill Stein fighting for a better world and the greater good rather than choosing the lesser evil. Mike, why don't you just go back to Flint and start replacing lead pipes with something non-toxic?

Another couch-critic with nothing offered but negatives!
What's YOU'RE hoped-for solution?
 
 
+12 # Patriot 2016-11-26 17:20
Moore isn't remotely on the same plane as Sanders, who has earned none of your vitriol.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:50
And Moore is usually right. For some reason he can't think straight when it comes to Clinton. I don't think we should repeal is progressive credentials because of this. He should go back to normal once Clinton leaves the stage.
 
 
-6 # Thomas0008 2016-11-27 01:55
Well said Marshalldoc. This comment you made should be plus 66, NOT negative 33...
 
 
+1 # markovchhaney 2016-11-27 10:55
Because being a rigid "purist" works really well in the long haul. See Stalin, Josef for starters.
 
 
+8 # markovchhaney 2016-11-27 10:54
Marshalldoc, with all due respect, I never had the slightest belief in Stein's ability to attract a meaningful number of votes, whereas Sanders proved in the primaries that he could. She has no experience whatsoever in government, Sanders has decades, and of a sort I admire and support.

Blaming Sanders for backing Clinton is to be blind to how politics and government work. You don't throw your closest allies under the bus just because many of their allies are crooks. To do so is to commit political suicide, at least in a two-party system like we have. You might be abe to pull that off in the UK or somewhere else with multiple parties and coalition governments, but not here. Sanders did what made sense under bad circumstances. Sure, he pissed off folks, but not enough that his movement is by any means dead, and now he stands to help lead the party that he stayed loyal to. For all the whining from Clinton purists about socialism and how Bernie isn't a real Democrat, do you think they're going to vote for the GOP in 2018 or 2020, whether the candidate in question is a Sanders Democrat or Sanders himself v. Trump? Pretty doubtful.

On the other hand, if he'd come out vehemently against Clinton, few of those Clintonistas would ever support anyone they associate with him. He'd likely have ruined the political chances of Gabbard and many others. Why do that? All he could have accomplished was to cut his own throat and perhaps help Trump win by more votes. Pointless.
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-11-28 22:55
mark: A thoughtful take on what happened, thank you. Bernie did not sell out, his message has been the same for the two+ decades I have known about and supported him. He is a canny pol and is not in this for himself. Presently he is the most popular pol in the US and still on message. The more people know about Bernie the more people like Bernie, and more and more people are liking Bernie! He is the natural lightning rod for the counter insurgency against both parties that might finally end the four decade neoconserv/neol ib stranglehold. A principled statesman, a pol with integrity who doesn't parrot the script given him by $$$ sponsors, he is a rare bird in current US politics. People are attracted by his authenticity and he is well positioned to play an important role in shaping discourse in the coming years. I encourage those who want to see progressive change to rally around him and create the groundswell that will bring democracy back to the US.
 
 
+18 # Shorey13 2016-11-26 16:11
First: Michael Moore for President!

Second: Forget the Democratic Party. We need a new, Progressive Party, which should immediately invite all Progressive Democrats (Congress, Governors, etc.) to resign from that party and join the rest of us in refusing to cooperate in any way with a Trump administration. And I do mean "in any way",

This is the best opportunity in our lifetimes (I'm 77!) to regain control of our country from the oligarchs, and reactionaries. Waiting for 2020 (or even 2018) is not an option.

An enormous demonstration by women will happen in January in Washington. A perfect opportunity to announce the new Party.
 
 
+21 # diamondmarge7 2016-11-26 16:19
Librarian & Tedrey.
IMO, you guys said it for me. Yes, I want a recount. Yes, I think Shillery is a war hawk, greedy, a corporatist==sh e persuaded Obama to absolute destroy/ruin/ki ll Libray&gloated about the horrible murder of Gaddafi--but she wouldn't appoint anybody like the racist Sessions, or the anti-education dope DeVos; or the international knownothing like Haley; etc etc
 
 
+24 # diamondmarge7 2016-11-26 16:24
Both Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders thouhht the best they could do for our country AT THE TIME was to campaign for HRC. I don't/didn't agree, but I have never questioned their patriotism or loyalty to this country. DWSchultz & the Establishment Dems wanted HRC & rigged the primaries. Made me stop calling myself-an FDR Democrat fo-evah-A progressive & proud of it.
Anybody who STILL doesn't get what a flawed candidate HRC was must read "Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton" by
Diana Johnstone.
But Trump--to use his own favorite phrase-is a LOSER & he's appointed other losers & jerks to his cabinet because BIRDS OF A FEATHER---or, if u prefer another phrase, WATER RISES/SINKS to ITS OWN LEVEL. Trump is a f---ing DISASTER.
 
 
+5 # hipocampelo 2016-11-26 16:40
diamondmarge7: So is Mrs Clinton.
 
 
+5 # candida 2016-11-26 17:47
False equivalencies, hipo. Or as Noam Chomsky said in his interview with Al Jazeera, "insane."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB54XxbgI0E
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:54
They both are. This is a stupid argument. If one is worse it isn't by much (I think it is probably Hillary) and doesn't mean we can relax if the other gets in. We have to fight either way. That's just the way it is.
 
 
-5 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 21:07
Not so completely.
 
 
-1 # tonywicher 2016-11-26 16:25
If a civil war is what you want. Michael Moore is your man. Never did any party in history deserve to lose more than the Democratic Party this year, which cheated the popular choice of the party, Bernie Sanders, to nominate a war criminal Wall Street operative totally against what the party once stood for back when it was worth something. The Democratic party should learn a lesson from its richly deserved defeat and kick out its warmongers and Wall Street operatives, but judging from this Moore editorial this hasn't happened yet. Maybe it will take a few months to sink in. Meanwhile, I don't think Trump is the kind of monster the liberals have painted him. He may even turn out to be a new kind of Republican - a rational one. I look forward to relaxation of tensions of Russia.
 
 
+14 # policymaven 2016-11-26 16:54
But she didn't lose-she won the popular vote!
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-11-26 17:23
That remains to be seen, if there is a recount. But then, Sanders didn't lose either--which is why the Democrats are helplessly unable to demand a recount.
 
 
+13 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 19:57
By the rules in place at the time, she lost. She should have been calling for abolition of the electoral college after Gore along with the rest of the party. It would require a constitutional amendment, but if the process had been started in 2001, there is a good chance she would have had to deal with it this year.
 
 
+4 # tonywicher 2016-11-27 11:32
So what?That's not the rules of the game as it it is played. You want to change the rules, do it before the election, not afterwards.
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-12-03 23:11
Quoting policymaven:
But she didn't lose-she won the popular vote!

+2.5 million more than Trumpolini and counting!
 
 
+12 # candida 2016-11-26 17:52
Quoting tonywicher:
I don't think Trump is the kind of monster the liberals have painted him. He may even turn out to be a new kind of Republican - a rational one.


Yes, rational from a fascist point of view. A man who picks monsters to head the government is himself one. Why are you choosing to be blind?

Another so-called progressive lost in delusion and a world of make-believe, a hazard of obviously white-male identity (didn't need your photo to know this given your privilege-soake d denial).
 
 
+6 # tonywicher 2016-11-27 01:33
You mean even more monstrous than Samantha power or Victoria nuland?
 
 
+5 # markovchhaney 2016-11-27 11:06
Please, candida, you throw around this hyperbolic name-calling without even considering the possibility that other people are thinking about things as carefully and rationally as you and simply are arriving at different conclusions.

When you throw in that last paragraph, you try to utterly negate the reality that millions of smart, ethical people live in. I'm one of them. Tony appears to be. And you're in no position to claim the high-ground as far as I can see. You simply succeed in demonstrating that you have a monolithic view of progressives who quite validly see Clinton as an enormous danger to world peace who comes with few reasons, if any, to think she would be an improvement over Obama or Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with gender, sex, skin color, or the rest of the litany of identity politics. Some of us are trying to take a global view: you seem focused on invalidating any and all disagreement or debate and obliterating the very existence of dissenters by reducing them to your cliches. So with all due respect, I urge you to cease this divisive and clearly ineffective writing. No one is being won over, but I suspect many are repulsed, as I am, by your insults and stereotyping.
 
 
0 # Ken Halt 2016-11-28 23:04
mark: Thanks again, good advice.
 
 
-12 # polfilmblog@gmail.com 2016-11-26 17:16
Hey Mike, about that shameless, and shocking, HYPOCRISY you're currently cultivating...

You basically tossed your career away to endorse Hillary Clinton, one of the salespeople of the Iraq War. Democratic party hypocrisy was never so clear and intractable. You and your party of corruption and mass murder are the problem, just as much as the Republicans. You threw your soul in the pits of Hades and forfeited any moral high ground you may have thought you have, forever.
 
 
+7 # janie1893 2016-11-26 17:36
if the name "Green" is a turnoff how about a totally new name for a reasonable, rational, inclusive, sane, national party for the 21st century.
How about "Americans for World Peace"?
 
 
+2 # Inspired Citizen 2016-11-26 18:23
How about an American Syriza lead by Bernie and a trustworthy progressive partner?

At this point I would not trust Michael Moore. He supported Hillary, wife of neo-liberal, corporate sell-out Bill Clinton, with the same ideology. Neo-liberals are the people progressives oppose, and we cannot afford to remain locked inside the mental prison called the two-party system. At this point, that's cowardice AND a bad choice.

Would Moore be urging opposition if Hillary the fracking, neo-liberal uber-hawk with conservative values had won the election? Where was Moore when Wikileaks exposed the collusion between the DNC and the Clinton machine? That's when there should have been mass protests across the nation during the DNC using local Party offices as a local protest focal points.

I lost faith with a lot of people I respected before Bernie's revolution changed things. Revolutionaries do not vote for neo-liberal warmongers, and we don't vote out of fear.

Because of fear, people won't vote their conscience. I'm glad the American Founders had more courage, or else we'd still be paying taxes to the Crown. Isn't that the less "evil" in 1777-80 compared to trying to kill soldiers who are following orders? It's a lot less scary than being shot at.

People like Moore and Reich who advocated for Clinton in the general election wanted voters to fear their own conscience. I'm not down with that, and both major party candidates were frightening in their own, special ways.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 20:00
Still single issue. People concerned about getting a job or keeping the one they have won't pay any attention.
 
 
+18 # sjporter 2016-11-26 18:09
Wisconsin's elections office said Friday that it has received Stein's request, as well as a petition for recount from 2016 Reform Party presidential candidate Rocky Roque De La Fuente.

"The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates," Wisconsin elections administrator Michael Haas said in a statement. "We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice."

The announcement follows pledges by Stein to order recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- three states that went to Trump, despite voting Democratic in every presidential election since 1992.

That discrepancy has helped fuel speculation of vote tampering. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/11/25/Recount-granted-in-Wisconsin-same-likely-coming-for-Penn-Michigan/4531480112211/?spt=mps&or=1&sn=tn_us
 
 
+15 # Jaax88 2016-11-26 21:15
Wisconsin is an questionable situation when the governor is GOP a partisan crook. This recount needs to be watched carefully by independents and Stein picked observers.
 
 
+15 # sjporter 2016-11-26 18:13
On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, in 14 of the states in Trump's column, they can vote for Hillary Clinton without any legal penalty if they choose.
We are calling on the 149 Electors in those states to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE BY OVER 2,000,000 and counting. https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=627835418&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
 
 
+7 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 20:00
The only reason that Hillary Clinton "won" the nomination was because she and her party bosses cheated.
There will be civil war if the electoral college electors install Clinton...
Therefor they should all write in BERNIE SANDERS!
 
 
-5 # tonywicher 2016-11-27 11:40
"Mr.Trump is unfit to serve? You have a right to your opinion, but no right to foist it on people who voted for Trump. If you try, you're the fascist, a PC fascist. Take a look in the mirror.
 
 
+3 # sashapyle 2016-11-28 09:50
In my view, anyone who inflames racial divisions, focuses on his own "brand" and apparently intends to abandon and betray his voters (and everyone else) --while installing Nazis in the White House-- is unfit to serve. Maybe you don't hold the President of the US to any standards at all, but some of us do.
 
 
+2 # shulie 2016-11-28 19:38
Expressing an opinion is not foisting it on anyone. My own opinion is that many people who voted for Trump hoped for a change from desperate straits, and in voting for him ignored the fact that he is not fit to serve as president. It simply didn't weigh heavily with them.
I voted for Hillary because I believed she would do good things for the impoverished, neglected checkers in my local super market. To do that I had to put aside the undoubted negatives that Hillary had and vote for her for the good she might accomplish. Not a perfect world, folks.
 
 
+29 # ChrisCurrie 2016-11-26 18:43
The Electoral College System IS the "law of the land." And there is still a possibility that due to the unstable conduct of the current "president elect" the Electoral College might decided to elect Hillary after all. This is one of the main reasons our founding fathers created the Electoral College System in the first place.

In the 2000 Presidential election, the five Republicans on the US Supreme Court UNCONSTITUTIONA LLY AND DISHONESTLY usurped our Electoral College System to install George W. Bush as President BEFORE the Florida recount was completed (a recount which would have shown that Al Gore had clearly won in Florida as well). And you can see how much damage THAT did to our country (and the residents of the Middle East).
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-11-26 20:06
They have the legal right to do it, but do they have the nerve? I tend to doubt it. And on the off chance they do it, we need a plan in place to counter Hillary's wars. The best thing about Trump is that he has cancelled regime change in Syria, but if Hillary wins it's back on.
 
 
-3 # Thomas0008 2016-11-27 01:24
Oh, I see chris, you want clinton in office, so she can continue and expand on the damage in the middle east, and here in the U.S., you so correctly pointed out? are you drunk, or are you a paid government hack?
 
 
-2 # LandLady 2016-11-26 20:21
Great comment from Chris Currie. I agree that Hillary is more of a war monger than Trump (although his recent military appointments are scary). I'm willing to give him a chance. Putin seems to have been doing some wise and de-escalating things, for which Clinton and many others give him NO credit,they're just the same old Cold War repeaters. So fingers crossed that maybe Trump can do some good for our country and the world (even though at times it does feel like a long shot...)
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-11-27 00:42
I think that is why Hillary is so anti-Putin. He outfoxed her and got in the way of her plans to remake the Middle East.
 
 
+3 # sashapyle 2016-11-28 09:52
Giving Trump "a chance" means normalizing white supremacist, homophobic, religious fringe, and racially divisive policies and appointments. Only whites are talking about giving him a chance. People of color will suffer while you wait and see.
 
 
+23 # grandlakeguy 2016-11-26 22:52
As long as we accept stolen elections we will get more of them.
Every journalist worth a damn should have been challenging the theft of the primaries rather than jumping on the getaway car of the thief!
 
 
-7 # Thomas0008 2016-11-27 00:30
eh, mikey, why don't you do us all a favor and follow clinton into the dust bin of history?
 
 
+9 # sean1303 2016-11-27 04:42
What we CAN be doing right now, is occupying the offices of every US Senator until they CONFIRM Obama's appointee to the supreme court, and any other appointees pending. This is the Constitution, people, we have the right on our side by ANY measure.
 
 
+1 # newell 2016-11-29 08:01
Seems RSN has been taken over by the right. The Hillary-haters may say they are progressives but the comments here support Trump. Don't be fooled by Trumpettes in progressive clothing.
 
 
-2 # VAHAWK 2016-12-01 16:53
This dude has been playing LIBS for fools for years. It's all an act. he just says what he thinks people want to hear. It's a racket. Anyone who reads or listens to this moron is a 100% SUCKA!
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2016-12-03 12:28
Quoting VAHAWK:
This dude has been playing LIBS for fools for years. It's all an act. he just says what he thinks people want to hear. It's a racket. Anyone who reads or listens to this moron is a 100% SUCKA!


Takes a moron to accuse one!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN