MovieTickets.com says[1]
This is an expansive, rib-tickling, and subversive comedy in which Moore, playing the role of "invader", visits a host of nations to learn how the U.S. could improve its own prospects. The creator of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine" is back with this hilarious and eye-opening call to arms. Turns out the solutions to America's most entrenched problems already existed in the world--they're just waiting to be co-opted.
[1] Despite just 1 HTML error and 3 warnings, that page doesn't "Degrade gracefully" at all for me without specifying No Style in my browser. (I block everything that is not readable text.)
The Ring of Fire notes Republicans Will Hate Michael Moore's New Movie
"The American Dream seemed to be alive and well everywhere but America", says Moore.
["Where To Invade Next"] is the sort of documentary that will have Republicans sputtering angry America-themed rhetoric and completely missing the point.
From the other side of the aisle, Esquire says Noted Schmuck Michael Moore Just Made a Very Good Movie
Michael Moore is the worst kind of asshole: the kind who's right a lot of the time. He tells us mostly agreeable things in the most disagreeable way, rich in smarm and hyperbole and self-regard. A certain kind of messenger seems to revel in people's occasional desires to kill him. Moore is that kind of messenger.
[More after the break.]
AlterNet reports
"Where to Invade Next" begins with the observation that the United States has not won a war since World War II. It then comically imagines the Department of Defense calling on Moore to step in and save our nation. His plan? Invade nations not to take them over but to take their good ideas. We then see a hilariously ironic shot of Moore on a ship draped in the American flag and heading out on his quest.
Moore then embarks on a tour of a series of European nations and one in Africa where he finds society getting it right. From debt-free education to paid leave, women's rights, prison reform and delicious school lunches, Moore offers viewers a world where people simply live better than we do here.
In a brilliant move, Moore has made his most patriotic film yet without shooting a single frame in the United States.
[...] As Moore moves throughout the film [displaying] the American flag, he isn't just claiming the good ideas of other nations; he is claiming the flag and its symbolic force for those on the [Social Democratic middle.]
[...] Moore's film offers an alternative to the militaristic version of American exceptionalism. And he moves away from the negative politics that have haunted the [Social Democratic middle] since the '60s. [...] Moore realizes that progressive politics need to move [...] [toward] a platform that can inspire the imagination.
[...] By the end of the film "Where to Invade Next" refers as much to invading our apathetic political zeitgeist as it does to invading other nations. The ultimate irony of the film is that all we need to do to improve our nation is change the way we think.
[...] Bush won [...] because the Republicans got out the fear vote.
On the other side of the fence, [many in the center vote against the right], not for anything. And that's where the political potential of Moore's film lies. It asks us to imagine, if the invasion this country really needs is not an invasion of another country, but rather the invasion of the people into our own political process. Now that would be a real revolution.
[...] "Where to Invade Next" has a wide release set for Feb. 12, which is also Abraham Lincoln's birthday and the week of the New Hampshire primary. Coincidence? Definitely not.
[...] So Moore asked his distributors to get on board with a release plan designed to rock the nation: "I said .... give me a month or so to barnstorm the country, me personally, in a big rock 'n' roll tour bus, and we will criss-cross the country showing the film for free, leading up to the New Hampshire primary--because the issues in the film are the issues, the real issues, people want being discussed in this election year." They may also have music and rallies along the way.
TIME has some specifics about what Moore found:
In Italy, workers receive generous paid vacations, extended maternity leave, and two-hour lunch breaks! In France, little kids are fed tasty, nutritious school lunches, including fancy cheeses! In Finland, young students aren't burdened with childhood-crushing homework, while in Portugal, no one is arrested for using drugs! In Slovenia, a university education is free! In Iceland, wicked bankers who threw the country into recent economic crisis were actually convicted of their crimes!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anne Nonymous on Monday December 28 2015, @02:14PM
Mussolini made the trains run on time, and who wouldn't want that for America. </sarcasm>
(Score: 4, Funny) by VLM on Monday December 28 2015, @02:19PM
Republicans hate trains, so you do the math on that. Weird but true.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday December 29 2015, @06:34PM
No they like trains, how else would their house keepers get there from 30 miles away?
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday December 28 2015, @02:57PM
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
TL;DR - "False"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @04:21PM
While it is factually false, it is still honest in that it represents an accurate critique of the fascist mindset.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Eunuchswear on Monday December 28 2015, @05:23PM
No, the better criticism is pterry's -- Maybe the trains run on time, but you won't like the destination.
Watch this Heartland Institute video [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 28 2015, @09:47PM
While it is factually false, it is still honest in that it represents an accurate critique of the fascist mindset.
No. There are plenty of ideologies that have the same myth of authoritarian government competence. If we held this as a criteria for fascism, then we end up calling all sorts of beliefs fascist. And that would be rude, so I am told.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:22PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 29 2015, @06:09PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @05:49PM
Mussolini's big thing was basically media control. He told the newspapers what to print, and that rapidly devolved into fantasy-land inaccuracy in an age when alternative sources of pertinent information were very thing on the ground.
A more accurate legacy would be something like: Mussolini told the papers to tell everyone the trains were running on time. Factual accuracy not guaranteed.
Of course, it turns out that fantasy is a lousy basis for running a country, so Italy got spanked by reality until the italians got rid of him.
(Score: 1) by Noldir on Monday December 28 2015, @06:00PM
Not that I find the comment funny, but what on earth are you implying here? That because Mussolini once lived in Italy and perhaps did good things as well (you never know) that all future ideas from that country must be banned because once upon a time an asshole lived there?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anne Nonymous on Monday December 28 2015, @06:46PM
> what on earth are you implying here?
My (perhaps too subtle) point is that all countries have good (e.g. timely trains) and bad (e.g. fascist dictators). Deciding to do things one way (let's just decide to have timely trains), may have complicated or unpalatable effects and costs (not necessarily monetary).
It's not just as simple as saying, well, let's just do all the good things and none of the bad. There's plenty of room for improvement in the US (and in everywhere else), but it's not as simple as snapping our fingers and saying, "let's have:
> ...generous paid vacations, extended maternity leave, two-hour lunch breaks, tasty, nutritious school lunches, including fancy cheeses, [no] childhood-crushing homework, no one arrested for using drugs, a free university education, and [prosecution] of [financial criminals]!
(Score: 1) by Noldir on Monday December 28 2015, @07:16PM
Ah, that clears things up yes. Thank you :)
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @07:39PM
> It's not just as simple as saying, well, let's just do all the good things and none of the bad.
That's a reductive analysis that is just as subject to your own criticism. No one seriously believes that any of that is as "simple as snapping our fingers."
If no one seriously pushes for improved baselines in society they will never happen, but that doesn't mean that advocates expect it to be simple or easy.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 28 2015, @08:41PM
Actually, it is. I think we should have generous paid vacations, extended maternity leave, two-hour lunch breaks, tasty, nutritious school lunches, including fancy cheeses, [no] childhood-crushing homework, no one arrested for using drugs, a free university education, and [prosecution] of [financial criminals]!
I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders because he campaigns (and has the voting record to prove it) for generous paid vacations, extended maternity leave, two-hour lunch breaks, tasty, nutritious school lunches, including fancy cheeses, [no] childhood-crushing homework, no one arrested for using drugs, a free university education, and [prosecution] of [financial criminals]!
Ok, you got me. I don't actually know his stance on fancy cheeses.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Monday December 28 2015, @10:00PM
> Ok, you got me. I don't actually know his stance on fancy cheeses.
Dude, he's from Vermont [vermontbiz.com].
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday December 28 2015, @07:45PM
Hell even Hitler had the trains running on time even despite the massive allied bombing. Apparently it's not all that hard to do.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 28 2015, @09:32PM
Well, it probably takes using a heavy hand in dealing with the incompetent bureaucratic bozos running the train service. That's something the US refuses to do, but someone like Hitler has no problem doing.
Google for how the DC Metro train system is doing these days; it's an absolutely disaster.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Monday December 28 2015, @10:18PM
I call BS. The only problem with Metro is that it doesn't go all the places you might want it to go. But to get from my house out in the suburbs down to the Verizon Center to see the Wizards play, or to the Navy Yard to see the Nats, or to basically any tourist attractions, it's the ONLY way to go. It's way quicker and easier and safer than driving.
Oh, and they are having some political issues expanding out into the suburbs, because the rich folks out in the 'burbs don't want to pay extra taxes for a metro system that they won't use, because they'd rather sit in traffic for hours in their $100,000 Mercedes, rather than take a train with *gasp* poor people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:42AM
Right. The only problem is those poor people. Got it.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with limited transport options once you get where you're going.
Couldn't have anything to do with the lack of flexibility in your travel plans and schedule.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the hefty and inflexible employment needs around trains regardless of how full or empty they are.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with limited cargo capacity on the train, or once you reach it.
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the problem of first getting to a station and waiting around - by which time you might as well be on your way.
Couldn't have anything to do with the noise of train brakes, couplings or crossing horns or bells.
Couldn't have a damn thing to do with all the upheaval, expense, noise, dust and other problems that go along with laying track in the first place.
Couldn't have anything to do with the problems, delays, and general fuss around making connections, missing connections, sitting around and waiting for connections, hoping there's room on your connections.
Trains are a good match for the needs of cargo, where they beat road freight by a factor of three or four in terms of efficiency. Not great for all things, and not great for the last mile, but if you have 5,000 tons you need to get from Dubuque to Los Angeles, you could do a lot worse. They're not a great match for people, unless you happen to know for a fact that a large number of people will want to travel precisely from point A to precisely point B at precisely time C - in which case trains aren't too bad.
I ride trains. I like trains. I'll guarantee you I've spent more time on trains than most americans in my life, both local and cross-country. But if you think that the problems begin and end with poor-people-cooties, you're completely out of touch with the real problems presented by trains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @07:20AM
, and not great for the last mile,
If, as a human, a traveler, a commuter, you are worried about the last mile, I suggest you lose some weight, bro! Just saying! If only rail came within a mile of my destination! I have to hoof it over 20 miles, with a pack-train, just to get to the fire lookout tower. And then at the end of the month, it is the same 20 miles back, although mostly downhill. No roads. No bloody tourists (OK, some in the summer, but then, I am only on lookout in the summer.) So if you think that the problems begin and end with poor-people-cooties or the last mile, you're completely out of touch with the real problems presented by trains.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:38PM
I call BS on your BS call.
Go read about it: the Metro has a lot of problems for a subway system. They've had fatal accidents, they have ridiculous delays (most thanks to single-tracking), they can't keep competent people around, the controllers and the operators are constantly fighting each other. Washington Post has a bunch of articles about it. The NY MTA doesn't have these problems.
(Score: 1) by number11 on Tuesday December 29 2015, @12:03AM
Well, it probably takes using a heavy hand in dealing with the incompetent bureaucratic bozos running the train service. That's something the US refuses to do, but someone like Hitler has no problem doing.
Google for how the DC Metro train system is doing these days; it's an absolutely disaster.
Ah, that's right. DC governance is ultimately directly controlled by Congress (a body in which they are not represented), isn't it?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:35PM
It's true, but it's more than that. The DC Metro used to be an good system, back in the early 90s, but it got mismanaged into its current state. The Washington Post has had a bunch of articles about it; here's one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-says-subway-breakdowns-might-be-adding-to-a-steady-ridership-decline/2015/10/06/4bb59716-6c35-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 28 2015, @02:33PM
Technically the message I'm proposing is on topic, although it very superficially appears off topic. Anyway I want to see a variation on "the man in the high castle" where instead of the 30s Germans taking over the USA, its the 2010's Canadians. Its the same core message as the movie we're talking about, but presented somewhat differently.
You can just picture Canadian Special Forces soldiers forcing Americans to have civilized health care and all that other Canadian stuff.
There would be downsides. "On Tuesday, the camps burn people who don't like poutine" and it might take some military force to displace American Football with ice hockey, especially in the rural south, especially in the summer. Replacement of all condiments (mustard, ketchup, mayo) with maple syrup will also encounter considerable societal resistance.
On the other hand, Hollywood loves hotties, and there's no hotter women than Canadian women (well, maybe the last few blond swedes) so it'll get great viewership ratings if they put enough cheesecake in it.
I could see this as a real winner as a political film.
As a sequel, movie II could be the USA invades Canada and much like they brought civilization to us in episode I, we'd F everything up in episode II. Then in episode III Anakin would try to get a high score at the kids jedi academy, oh wait Moore already made that propaganda movie. Well whatever. Anyway its a winner of a movie idea with legs for sequels to stand on, in the same genre as the given movie.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 28 2015, @03:10PM
That works for me. Who doesn't like poutine?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @06:28PM
That works for me. Who doesn't like poutine?
I'm a lactose intolerant, gravy-phobic, carnivore you insensitive clod!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday December 28 2015, @03:19PM
2010 was a bad year in Canada, you'd need to go back a bit farther. That particular Conservative government was pushing Canada in the same direction as Bush et al.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @06:51PM
How about an alternative history where Gore wins? Do we ever invade Iraq? Does Microsoft get broken up? Do LGBT rights come as far as they have? Does the ongoing electric car revolution happen ten years earlier? Does AMD remain competitive? Was Nokia allowed to continue to exist without handing over the encryption keys?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 28 2015, @09:40PM
"On Tuesday, the camps burn people who don't like poutine"
That stuff is nasty, so I'd have to resist. It's like the Canadian version of haggis.
it might take some military force to displace American Football with ice hockey
That sounds great to me. Hockey is just about the only sport that's actually entertaining and interesting to watch, partly because of the skillful skating, partly because of the fights.
Replacement of all condiments (mustard, ketchup, mayo) with maple syrup will also encounter considerable societal resistance.
I've been to Canada; they don't use maple syrup on everything like that. What we *could* look forward to is actually having maple syrup in restaurants for use with breakfast foods. That would be a HUGE improvement in the quality of dining here in America, because there's very, very, very few restaurants where you can get maple syrup to put on your pancakes and French toast. I dream of a day when I can order some French toast for breakfast and eat it with maple syrup without having to bring it in myself.
So I'm all for a Canadian occupation, as long as they don't force that poutine crap on me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @11:13PM
There is actually an intentional bottleneck in the supply.
A producer needs to gain the blessing of a cartel. [google.com]
Some have noted the similarity to other price-fixing entities. [google.com]
N.B. A movie I liked about artificial scarcity is 11 Harrowhouse. [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday December 28 2015, @02:40PM
You can ignore that error and warnings because the validator can't even fetch that page. Check the "Show Source" option and try again, it receives a zero byte file and tries to validate it. Not only that but the warnings were for missing doctype and encoding. You can see that the page has both of those if you view source.
I vote to leave the snarky website design criticisms out of the summary unless they are amazingly bad : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 28 2015, @03:01PM
Ditto. Even though I'm an HTML fascist there's no need to rant about an unrelated issue. A simple warning - "behind paywall", "registration required", "misrenders on some browsers, disabling javascript/style-sheets recommended", "flash ad laden", etc. is all that's needed.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @10:40PM
The presentation I got was text overlaid on top of other text.
It was an unreadable mess until I did something to remove their styling.
"Unreadable mess" qualifies as noteworthy in my book.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday December 28 2015, @03:06PM
Recommended watching. It tells you everything you need to know about stupidity. I was literally pulling my hair out whilst watching it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @07:32PM
> That is, a documentary *about* Moore:
Uh no. It is a fictional comedy by the writer of oddly popular dull-as-dirt movies like "Airplane!"
How weird it is that you perceived it as a documentary?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 29 2015, @12:31AM
Surely you jest!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:29AM
Surely you jest!
Don't call me Shirley!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:18PM
I just hope the "Informative" I got above was from someone who could peel back the irony in my post and see that I was saying the film-makers, and the film, and the film's intended audience, were painfully stupid. As is the A/C who sits between our posts. As is the person who up-modded said A/C.
Moore may be a *shit* documentary maker (want a well-made documentary, try "The Weather Underground", I saw that a few days back and was impressed by its neutrality in a highly charged topic-matter), but he wasn't the target of GGPP.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 29 2015, @06:39PM
Sweet! What's mine say? :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @02:10AM
Don't agree with the politics? Whatever, it's your opinion.
Think Airplane & The Naked Gun are bad movies? You're a wretched moron and all right-thinking humans hate you.
(Score: 4, Funny) by kaganar on Monday December 28 2015, @03:11PM
FTFY
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @03:24PM
In just two years, the amount of content after the break will be doubled!
Wait, wrong Moore.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by ncc74656 on Monday December 28 2015, @03:16PM
Quoting the execrable Esquire:
Since when has the Michigan Manatee ever been right about anything? Even Slate is willing to call him out [slate.com]. The first 10 hits on Google for "michael moore lies" [google.com] debunks one "film" after another.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedGreen on Monday December 28 2015, @03:43PM
Just because the conservative freaks put up page after page of lies does not make them true.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @04:04PM
Just because the liberal freaks put up page after page of lies does not make them true.
Just because your meaningless platitude contains a tautology does not make it 'deep'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @03:44PM
Wow first the stoner sloth, now this horrible attack on another innocent species... Why do people now a days think it is ok to tarnish an entire species to try to make a point?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @04:24PM
Conservatives hate nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @05:05PM
Maybe it's a pune, or play on words;
The Michigan Manatee => The Huge Manatee => The Humanity
They are accusing Michael Moore of being a dirty, subversive, closet Humanist [wikipedia.org]!!1!one!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday December 28 2015, @07:13PM
The Slate article is the embodiment of refrigerator logic. It reads OK at the time but if you think about it for a moment, the arguments all fall apart.
Granted, Moore isn't perfect, but since he's a filmmaker and not a would-be Messiah, that's to be expected.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @04:46PM
Other nations have found a way to have a vibrant middle class withOUT the huge inequality we have. Republicans will try every trick in the book to distract voters from this fact, throwing up red herrings.
The biggest problem with our huge inequality is that the rich are buying laws they want, and squishing laws they don't like by bribing politicians and flooding the ad-ways. Pollution laws that hurt your profits? No problem: pay politicians to scrap it via campaign donations, or run bunches of ads saying the pollution regulations are "job killers".
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @06:10PM
Why are you so myopic to think this is a US-only issue? Sure, "Insightful" mods are easy to come by around here with "everywhere is great except the US" comments, but you'd really sound more insightful if your comments had proper perspective. Even the World Bank has pointed out that it is a worldwide problem.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @08:06PM
Come on man. He didn't say anything about it being uniquely american. Just that some other countries have done better. In the discussion of a story about America's problems it should be no surprise that the focus is on america's problems. Nit-picky sheldoon cooper posts like yours are the equivalent of grammer flames - technicalities that draw focus from the issues.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday December 29 2015, @04:48PM
America is leading the way, but don't worry, other countries are catching up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday December 28 2015, @06:18PM
The TPP is going to be a big surprise to those nations that have avoided the worst of it so far.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday December 29 2015, @01:32AM
They distract voters from plenty around this issue...like how just about all economists believe the best way to a strong economy is to have a lower class with more money to spend, and that our own history has proven this time and time again. Yet somehow we seem doomed to continue disproving trickle-down by example decade after decade at the expense of everyone but a tiny handful of "job creators".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 29 2015, @05:37PM
Moore offers viewers a world where people simply live better than we do here.
Other nations have found a way to have a vibrant middle class withOUT the huge inequality we have. Republicans will try every trick in the book to distract voters from this fact, throwing up red herrings.
And once again, the high costs of employing US labor relative to labor almost everywhere else in the world are completely ignored. It's not a matter of Republican distractions, it's a matter of supply and demand. Global supply of labor has increased. Similarly, the US has over the last century found a variety of ways to make US labor less attractive, thus, reducing demand for US labor. This contributes to the current level of wealth inequality since from the middle class on down, gains of labor makes up most of a person's wealth. While the wealthy get most of their wealth from capital and hence did not experience a similar decline in wealth.
The biggest problem with our huge inequality is that the rich are buying laws they want, and squishing laws they don't like by bribing politicians and flooding the ad-ways. Pollution laws that hurt your profits? No problem: pay politicians to scrap it via campaign donations, or run bunches of ads saying the pollution regulations are "job killers".
And here we see a complete disconnect from reality. There are two things to note. First, pollution laws even when remarkably bad, like Superfund, have not been repealed. Second, pollution laws can hurt your profits, but they can also help them by increasing the barrier to entry. A huge cause of the big multinational corporation is onerous regulation. That creates an economy of scale that favors the huge over the small. The narrative is wrong here and we should wonder why a blatantly wrong view of the world is so pernicious.
It's also worth noting that pollution regulations really were job killers. The harm was a bit overhyped and new, less polluting businesses managed to spring up to suck up most of the lost jobs, but it did happen as forecast with consequences you currently blame on Republicans and the rich.
Finally there is this fellow reply by digitalaudiorock [soylentnews.org]:
They distract voters from plenty around this issue...like how just about all economists believe the best way to a strong economy is to have a lower class with more money to spend, and that our own history has proven this time and time again. Yet somehow we seem doomed to continue disproving trickle-down by example decade after decade at the expense of everyone but a tiny handful of "job creators".
A "strong" economy depends on what you want to be strong. For example, a typical Keynesian metric of economic strength is GDP. Here, we run into the really poor metric of wealth equality. Humanity varies greatly in its desire for and ability to gain wealth. So we would not expect everyone to be equally wealthy. It would not even be a worthy goal.
Nor do I see GDP as being all that good a goal either since it leads to the Broken Window fallacy as a standard tool of economics (destroying wealth in order to increase economic activity).
In the phrase "lower class with more money to spend", we see both erroneous metrics of economic strength implied. For some reason it is considered better to dump money on the "lower class" and then have them flush it to the "upper class" (a process which doesn't actually improve wealth inequality, but does increase economic activity), than it is to encourage thrifty behavior (which does reduce wealth inequality, but at a cost of reduced short term economic activity). Similarly, there's no reason for "job creators" to be a "tiny handful". This is just a consequence of the enormous pile of regulation on US business activity increasing the barrier to entry for anyone wanting to create a business rather than a natural consequence of "trickle down" economics.
In summary, I see the same clueless advocacy for bad economics policy that ignores the reality of global labor competition while simultaneous backing policies that make things worse.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @07:14PM
I'm not a democrat, either. I hold both parties in a combination of suspicion and contempt.
And while I haven't seen this movie, everything I've read about it (all the links, for starters as well as some googlings) leaves me somewhere between dismay and disgust.
Michael Moore seems to be second only to Donald Trump in his lust for the limelight, and draws level with The Donald in his infidelities with the truth.
These observations lead me to my major gripe: phrases such as "Republicans will hate X!" and "Conservatives will hate Y!" are the clickbait style dog whistles to suggest that what's in the content is somehow a Greater Progressive Truth - when in actual fact it might be quite possible that a lot of people hate something for reasons that have nothing to do with political (self-)identification, and a lot to do with factual inaccuracies, half-truths, misleading presentations and just general silliness.
I'm not going to bother hoping that there will be any improvement in the tenor of political discussion because of my gripes, but at least it would be nice to spread the idea that we could maybe do better.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 28 2015, @08:43PM
It really doesn't matter what he actually says, though. The conservatives really are guaranteed to hate it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @09:36PM
"I'm not a republican, but . . ."
Hey, isn't this just like the old "I am not a racist, but . . . " meme? Hmm, I wonder why?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @11:48PM
Is your reading comprehension that bad? You really don't see the difference?
Maybe it would help if you pictured a progressive reformer, surrounded by one of the more chemically empowered groups of Occupy movement people, head in her hands while the TV cameras roll, saying: "Guys, please, stop trying to help, you're making us all look bad here."
Rabid partisanship is part of the problem, not part of the solution, and if you think that the Trumpies and the Tea Partiers have a monopoly on that, you really have not been paying attention.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Grishnakh on Monday December 28 2015, @09:45PM
Maybe that's the key. After we get a Republican in the White House next year and a Republican-dominated Congress, we just need to get Michael Moore to make some movies bashing environmental regulations and single-payer healthcare, and praising the TPP.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 28 2015, @11:29PM
After we get a Republican in the White House next year
Ha ha ha HA! Oh, wait, did you intend that to be a serious remark? Well then, um, sure. Could happen. But I do remember the bumper stickers during the Bush re-coronation period: "Cthulu for President! Why settle for the Lesser Evil?" Maybe it wasn't the Unspeakable hisself, maybe it was the other: "Voldemort for President!", or even more pure evil: "Re-elect Cheney!". But the really, really scary thing is that the post is coming from inside SoylentNews! No, not that; the really scary thing is that any of these three candidates is more reasonable of a choice than any of the Republican candidates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @12:58AM
I was around then, as well.
I remember the absolutely hapless campaign run by Kerry. I wasn't wild about Bush, and I didn't support him then either, but Kerry left me with my jaw on the floor, wondering where the hell they found this guy.
I was wistfully thinking back to the good ol' Clinton days, and I didn't even like Slick Willy much! I'd have brought him back over Bush and Kerry both, even if it meant an official White House Seraglio for the president's personal use.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:33PM
You sound like another Democrat fanboy who's completely convinced that the Dems will win the election no matter what. I guess you're too young (or too forgetful) to remember that this exact same thing happened in 2000, and to a lesser extent, 2004. Thanks to dumb Democrat cheerleaders and lame Democrat candidates, we got 8 years of GW Bush. Thanks a lot.
In case you haven't noticed, between all your drooling, the GOP utterly controls the government everywhere except the White House. They control the Senate, the House, and most state governorships and legislatures. The Dems are doing a terrible job in actually getting good candidates out there and getting people to bother showing up at the polls to vote for them. Then the Dems have the gall to complain that their voters aren't putting enough effort into getting out to vote, when the DNC can't be bothered to put out any decent candidates, and instead give us shitty, corrupt candidates like Hillary. Then when an outsider (Bernie, normally an independent) tries running and drums up all kinds of real grassroots support from the younger crowd (you know, the crowd the Dems NEED if they want to actually win, just like they did with Obama in 2008 who courted the youth vote), the DNC led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz does everything in their power to sabotage his campaign in favor of her buddy Hillary.
So many Dems are pissed about Hillary and the DNC that if she gets the nomination (which looks pretty certain, regardless of the actual wishes of the voters), the Bernie voters are likely to not show up, write him in, or otherwise not vote for her. I've even seen plenty of people say they'll vote for Trump before they vote for Hillary. So most likely we'll get a repeat of 2000: the hand-picked Democrat candidate gets the nomination, and then loses the general election. So yes, I do think we can look forward to at least 4 years of Republican control of the federal government. Of course, Hillary is in bed with the bankers and the TPP, so I don't see how having her in the White House would be any worse.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday December 29 2015, @03:57AM
I'm not a Republican. I still would be laughing my ass off at a video of nothing more than different ways Moore could get the shit kicked out of him.
Just because a scumbag says things convenient for you to hear doesn't mean he's a scumbag worth keeping around.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @07:29AM
So, you are not a Republican, but you are? Why are you dying to Olive? I have never understood your username. Although now, at the end, I truly understand that you are a Republican who is not a Republican, (wait, isn't there a term for this? Nazi? No. Uzi? Maybe. RINO? But I thought that Rhinos were an endangered species, and the ground up horn of a Rhino could produce rigor in otherwise flaccid Republicans, like that guy who did all the ads for soft-pecker syndrome, Bob Dole.) I guess I can grok your handle. Not in a personal sense, of course. Asshole, asshole for being right. That sounds like the sort of asshole Republicans who are not Republicans would hate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 29 2015, @10:20AM
Look now, it somebody wants little kiddies to get healthy lunches he must be a total asshole and obviously deserves to be beaten to death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2015, @01:48AM
Look now, it somebody wants little kiddies to get healthy lunches he must be a total asshole and obviously deserves to be beaten to death.
Hmmm, content of post contradicts subject line. Cognitive dissonance encountered. Conclusion: Poster is a Republican. Codicil: unless this is satirical?
(Score: 2) by mth on Wednesday December 30 2015, @06:02PM
There is nothing progressive about the French liking fancy cheeses; they've done so for centuries. And making sure kids eat well is a good idea regardless of your politican leaning.
Taking bankers to court isn't progressive either; it's what happens if politicians listen to the people. However, if I recall correctly, it took considerable pressure from the Icelanders before action was taken against their bankers; it wasn't the default course of action. It's possible Moore is cherry-picking here. All over Europe, banks were bailed out, just under less favorable conditions than what the US banks got. Many people here in Europe have the opinion that the banks got off easy and haven't changed their ways as much as they should. Iceland is the exception because their relatively small economy was hit very hard when their oversized financial institutions collapsed.
Labeling good ideas like healthy eating or having stable finanicial infrastructure as progressive or conservative will only make it harder to get them adopted.