Michael Moore called what happened in 2016 and what nearly happened in 2020.
He's a progressive voice. While he doesn't speak for me or all progressives, I felt this represents me and a few others here quite well.
Please give this a read.
Quote:
AN OPEN LETTER TO JOE BIDEN Dear President-Elect Biden:
First of all, congratulations! YOU did it. WE did it! You stopped the madness. A grateful nation - and myself - are in a state of joy, hope and relief. Thank you for that! We are all eager to join with you to repair the damage done to our country — and to eliminate that about our society and our politics which gave us Donald Trump in the first place.
Mr. President-Elect, I first met you at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. It was clear to me from our talk that day that you were not the politician I remembered from the 1990s. On that day in Boston, we were by then over a year into the Iraq War, a war you voted for. My “Fahrenheit 9/11“ had just come out and you wanted to let me know that you were aware of the folly you had been sucked into. It seemed to me that you were doing a lot of soul searching and you wanted to hear my thoughts. To be honest, I was distracted by how perfect your teeth were, and I wondered, could you really be from the working class? By the end of our talk I was convinced there was something that was quite real and very good about you, though perhaps somewhat buried inside. Would it ever come out so the public could see it? As I reflect today on it - and you - I am sincerely hoping that you will indeed govern as a president who’s from the working class. You - one of us - in the White House. That’s how it should feel. Your actions, if bold, and brave, will make that true.
You are also our second Catholic president. I believe you are a person of faith. You and I were taught the same lessons in Catholic school: to love our neighbor, even our enemy; to create a world where everyone regardless of status or station has a seat at the table, and everyone gets a slice of the pie; a world where “the rich man will have a harder time getting into heaven than a camel will have getting through the eye of the needle.” We were taught that we will be judged by how we treat the least amongst us. Do I have that right? Are these not the moral, foundational principles of the coming Biden presidency?
I was so moved by your victory speech Saturday night when you told the immigrants and the children of immigrants that the Dreamers no longer had to live in fear. That Muslims were once again welcomed into our country. That the world could breathe a sigh of relief because we were going to let the planet Earth itself breathe and have some relief. And you told the teachers of America that starting January 20th, “one of your own will be living in the White House.” That just felt instantly good.
So if I may, I’d like to suggest a few things that might make your presidency one of the best this country has ever had. You and I may have our political differences (you like Amtrak trains, I’d like to ride a bullet train from New York to LA in 10 hours!😎), but I know that you and I - and tens of millions of others - all want and believe in the same basic things: • Health Care is a human right and every American must be covered; • Everyone must be paid a living wage and all of us must work to eliminate poverty and rebuild our broken middle class; • The massive and growing gulf between the ultra rich and everyone else must be narrowed — and the wealthy must go back to paying the taxes they should pay; • Women must be paid the same as men, and no man or government has the right to tell them what they can do or not do with their bodies.
So here’s my two cents:
1. You are right to make containing Covid-19 Job #1. Had Trump won, I’m guessing up to a million people in the next year or so would have died from him ignoring this virus. Yesterday you named your Covid task force of doctors and scientists and you are putting them to work. We don’t have a second to lose. Thank you for this.
2. As soon as you can, please provide much more unemployment relief for the jobless, stimulus checks for all, help for small businesses, and the creation of jobs we desperately need.
3. Millions have lost their health insurance because our system ties one’s health coverage to their employer. What happens when the employer, like now, is suddenly gone, or the boss wakes up one morning and decides these employees’ health benefits are too costly and must be cut? BOOM! Millions of families suddenly have no health insurance. This is nuts.
You MUST create a health system like every other industrial democracy — one backed by the government, not by the whims of the boss where you work or the pandemic that has shut him or her down. This is just plain common sense.
4. I see various people trying to take credit for your victory — and using their personal agendas to push you away from the progressive Left and toward the cowardly center which believes that the best way to beat Republicans is to just be a more easily-digestible version of Republicans. They think because Trump got 70 million votes the Democrats should reject Black Lives Matter, AOC, and anything that vaguely sounds like socialism — at a time when the majority of our citizens under the age of 35, according to most polls, prefer the idea of democratic socialism over the greed of modern-day capitalism. Why risk losing them? We need to listen to and understand why they feel this way. They’ve been saddled with crushing student debt and we’ve handed them a planet In the middle of its 6th extinction event as their future. You and Barack introduced them to the benefits of democratic socialism by letting them stay on their parents health insurance until they’re 26! The result: They just set a record by coming out and voting for you in the largest youth numbers ever.
But you know all this. And you also know how you won these razor-thin victories in the final five states as we nervously watched the final ballots come in from Black Philly, Black Detroit, Black Atlanta, Black Flint. Out west, it was Latinx and Navajo voters who delivered Nevada and Arizona to you. In your speech on Saturday you acknowledged it. And never in our history have I heard a President-elect single out the Black community and thank them “for having my back. And I promise you, I will have your back!” Black and brown and indigenous peoples, plus a landslide of women and young adult voters made this happen. Wow. I absolutely know you’ll keep that promise.
5. Please do not make the same mistake an otherwise well-meaning President Obama made in his first two years. He wanted everyone to get along. He was willing to compromise on anything. Kumbaya. The Republicans had already decided they were going to block EVERYTHING Obama proposed and that’s exactly what they did for eight long years with a discipline and a ruthlessness we should probably envy.
Don’t let this happen to you. Charge in on January 20th like FDR on steroids. You have no choice. People are dying! You need to sign executive orders and cajole, demand and shame Congress into action. And GO BIG! Eliminate the Electoral College through the National Popular Vote Act! DONE! Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment for women! Just one more state needed! DONE! Send in the Army Corps of Engineers to Flint to replace the poisoned water pipes! DONE!!
And none of the above needs a single vote of the United States Senate! In fact, this past summer, your “Biden-Bernie” unity joint task force identified a whopping 277 policies and decisions of Trump’s that you have the legal authority to immediately reverse by executive order or presidential policy decision https://prospect.org/…/277-policies-biden-need-not-ask-per…/. Find that big fat black marker of his and do it!
But, yes, we also desperately need those two Georgia Senate seats to get the Biden/Harris years off to a blazing start. So let’s make that happen! All hands on deck between now and January 5th!! We will all do whatever is needed.
Friends of mine on the Left who are more cynical than I am are probably wondering why I’m sending you this letter. Haha! Well, because I saw you kiss the head of that young grieving man at the Parkland, Florida memorial for the shooting victims of Stoneman Douglas High School. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyMa96yOel0
And because I saw you in New Hampshire this year while we were there working for Bernie, and you were doing a campaign stop and there was a restless five-year boy in the front row. His parents were trying to get him to settle down. You stopped and spoke to the boy. “Hey buddy,” you said in a kind but parental way, “if you can hang on and be a good boy for just a little bit, I’ll buy ya an ice cream!” The boy quieted down, you wrapped up and afterward you went over to the boy and his parents and you gave the kid five bucks so his mom and dad could go get him an ice cream cone. And I thought to myself, this is the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen — and then I started to cry because I wanted so much for that piece of America to come back — goofy, kind, and focusing on what’s truly important: a goddamned ice cream cone!
I think that’s why you won. People saw what I saw with you there in New Hampshire and back in Boston on that day 16 years ago — they knew that maybe, just maybe, their lives might just get a bit better - hopefully a LOT better - with you in the White House. Maybe less of them will die from the virus, this preventable horror. Trump, of whom we knew many despicable things and thought we’d already seen how low the bar could possibly go for one human being — but we never considered him under the moniker of mass killer, terrorist or superspreader. Then you, Joe, came along and offered us a respite, a break from the insanity — “Mr. Biden, we’ll be happy if you just give us four years of ‘Not Trump!’”
But I think you can give us much more than that. What could our lives be like in four years or eight years (with a Democratic Senate to boot)? How ‘bout no one ever goes bankrupt again because they got sick? How ‘bout no one is sitting in a prison cell for possessing marijuana or actual drugs? How ‘bout every child gets to go to a great school and every neighborhood has an expanded free library open seven days a week? How ‘bout paid family medical leave so you can take care of your elderly parents and not lose your job? How ‘bout my bullet train! You and we can make all this happen. It’s not rocket science. 30+ other countries already do it. (https://www.amazon.com/Where-Invade-Next-Micha…/…/B01EGW9EOU) They’re happier. Why not us? Our founders promised it to us in their second sentence: “the pursuit of Happiness.“ They said that’s what America would be — and it’s been a rare day when we’ve actually had a glimpse of it.
Joe, you’re the guy to fulfill the promise. I’ll help. So will my neighbors on the floor where I live. As will the woman who delivers my mail, the workers who stock the shelves of my neighborhood market, the nurse who just wrote me in tears because yesterday she watched her 22nd patient die, alone, no family allowed, from Covid. Not to mention the millions upon millions of Americans who are ready to be foot soldiers in your army of justice, equality and love. We’re all in! We don’t want to go back to the old “normal.” We want a new normal!
We want ice cream.
All my best, Michael Moore
P.S. You know why I think you can and will do this? You picked Kamala Harris to run with you! Ranked as the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate. A woman. A Black woman! I saw the first debate, the one where she challenged you and threw shade on your younger self. Most people (including me), if that had happened to us, we probably wouldn’t have gotten over it. You did. I’m guessing your conscience whispered to you, “well, dang, maybe she has a point.” You hold no grudges. You are a forgiving soul. But then you didn’t just forgive her — you put her on the Big Ticket! Who would do that? You did! That’s why my cautious, hopeful bet is on the good hands we’re now in — both your hands, Kamala’s hands, and the hands of the mass millions who voted for you and will continue to rise up and fight for this new, better, post-Trump, post-pandemic America.
So here's the thing about the electoral college. Going off of your argument, a smaller group of people shouldn't have their voices erased from another state.
What were to happen if the majority of the country suddenly supported slavery again and minority groups were put back into slavery due to the electoral college because of the whims of a fascist lunatic?
I'll also leave you with this.
And as I asked you in another thread, what scares you soo much about anything remotely liberal?
Technically, neither land nor people vote for the president.
State-chosen electors vote for the president. People seem to forget that fact. It was done that way for a reason.
The original intent of the Constitution was for states to have a lot more power than they currently do. The fact that we have gone away from that concept is why we have so many problems with our current government and political structure.
A government should have the same values/ideals/culture as the people they govern.
That's why we don't have a singular world government that controls everything; people are always going to have differing values.
The US has grown into a country with 2 different, distinct cultures. The problem is, 1/2 of the country is always being governed by the culture they disagree with, no matter who wins the election, because the federal government has so much power.
Basically, we are doomed to fail, at the current rate.
I read until he talked about eliminating the electoral college.
The electoral college allows a candidate with the least/lesser amount of votes to win our Presidential Election...
That doesn't sound like a smart way to elect a President of the peoples choice, does it?
It is a very smart way to do it.
Look at it this way, in the World Series, does the team that scores the most cumulative runs over 4 to 7 games win, or is it the first team to win 4 games? Of course you know the answer.
In the general election, it is more or less 51 separate elections. States with larger populations have more votes to cast then do less populated states, as they should.
The less populated states have their protections to off set the larger states if enough states vote against the more populated. If we didn't have this system, as urban areas continue to grow, a candidate could concentrate on 7-8 large cities if popular vote was the sole deciding factor and blow off the rest of the country. Total vote count usually wins the election, but sometimes not. It was set up this way to protect states like Rhode Island against states like Pennsylvania when the nation was formed. The nation would have never formed had it not been done this way. The less populated states would have never bought in, and they still won't.
The electoral system is mandated by the Constitution. It takes 75% of the states to ratify an amendment, so 38 states would have to agree, which they won't.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I don't see what's wrong with that analogy. He's trying to use something else by comparison to demonstrate the methodology of why a current system is in place.
If we want to move forward as a country, the shaming has to stop. It just does. It's such a poor double standard that both sides are guilty of. We have to have meaningful conversations without belittlement.
I think that the electoral college is something that can be discussed. Both sides have to acknowledge the one point of merit that the other side has. On one hand, in a democracy, the majority should rule. That is a valid argument by one side. A valid argument on the other side, is that in a country of so many states with such varying population, the smaller states would be steamrolled by the larger states. Also a valid argument.
So I think we start with those two ideals and look at what can be done, rather than just throwing shade which has gotten us to where we are.
I think one thing that can start the conversation is why do - in most cases - 100% of the states votes go to a candidate who might have only gotten 51% of that state's individual votes? Perhaps a compromise can happen somewhere in that discussion?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Trying to change the electoral college won't do anything to fix the problems of our country. Just like adding states won't do anything to fix our country. Those are just political power moves.
I've been think about this a lot lately: there are 2 very different fundamental mindset/cultures that are at war in out country right now, and I don't know how you can reconcile them.
If you pick any polarizing political issue right now (police brutality, healthcare, abortion, illegal immigration, gun laws, etc.), it basically boils down to 2 sides:
Do you think the issue or problem is the responsibility of the individual? If yes, you are a conservative.
Do you think the issue or problem is the responsibility of the government/system/society? If yes, you are a liberal.
That is pretty basic (and I could really go into depth about how this applies to every issue, if needed), but as you can see, it applies to most of the issues we face today.
How you view that is a pretty fundamental part of who we are as individuals that I don't think people are going to be able to change.
It’s funny because hadMoore gotten his preferred candidate in sanders, this letter would be nonexistent due to the fact that Trump would’ve won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and AZ, and cruised to a 2nd term.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I think one thing that can start the conversation is why do - in most cases - 100% of the states votes go to a candidate who might have only gotten 51% of that state's individual votes? Perhaps a compromise can happen somewhere in that discussion?
Because it's popular vote at the state level.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
Do you think the issue or problem is the responsibility of the individual? If yes, you are a conservative.
Do you think the issue or problem is the responsibility of the government/system/society? If yes, you are a liberal.
That certainly doesn't apply to the abortion issue.
Yes it does...you are just looking at it wrong.
Is the baby that I conceived my personal responsibility? Yes - conservative viewpoint.
Is the baby that I conceived because of outside factors (i.e. lack of access to birth control), and is it society's problem to solve (i.e. access to free abortion)? Yes - liberal viewpoint
In other words, the conservative view places the emphasis on the actions of the individual, while the liberal viewpoint places the emphasis on the actions of society and the government.
I get that's how the system works now, but why not have the ratio of each state flow into its electorate delegates?
Because it would still give the larger states a unsurmountable advantage. It would still amount to a popular vote.
State votes are a popular vote.
Remember, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic of independent states.
Think of all the advances we have made as a country because we didn't follow "popular" opinion.
Advances? And really opinions aren’t votes. The electoral college is old outdated designed in a time where information moved at a snails pace. The popular vote will prevail. One person one vote. This election wasn’t even close. That’s why the GOP faithful hang on to keeping this outdated system. It’s a tool to get one elected without having the votes. 5 million plus votes to Biden shouldn’t even be a question who won or lost. Pfffft trump and his deplorable lifetime supporters...more losing.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Good convo, Peen. Let's talk this through, because I'm not saying I'm right, but I'd like to explore this.
I don't think it would give the larger states an insurmountable advantage. You still have the even-ness of the Senate weighting included in the electorate. Plus, you'd have states that are more uniform, like the midwestern states, still by and large casting for Red ballots at ratios of 90%+, whereas you would dilute a state like Florida's influence on the election because all of their delegates would not be positioned toward one candidate or the other if they keep coming up with 51/49-ish ratios. As it is right now, you have candidates fighting more for the battle-ground states and not even caring for some of the midwestern states because those votes are "in the bag."
I agree we are not a pure democracy. There really is no such thing. I disagree that we are a republic, though. We are a hybrid. A democratic-republic. We are not a confederacy.
Your last point about advances we have made as a country because we did not follow "popular" opinion in my mind has little to do with the topic of government, and the premise is actually scary to me. The whole premise behind many of our adversarial governments is that popular opinion should not be followed. Can I ask, what advances are you referring to that we have made because we went against popular opinion?
The foundation of our government, which caused shock waves through the world, was that the government should be based on popular opinion.
I do agree with your point (as I've stated before) that a pure popular vote unfairly steamrolls smaller states, but I would have to say the dynamic we currently have could essentially boil down to a 3 or 4 figured number of people in one state determining which candidate gets 100% of that state's votes and potentially the general election.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
What is your counterargument to the fact that the election would be controlled by a very small number of states?
I'm struggling with the gerrymandering correlation. In gerrymandering, you specifically draw districts to funnel votes toward maintaining the election of a certain candidate or political party. The states are pretty much drawn as is. Each state is given delegates in the same equation as the rest of them. I'm just trying to understand your point.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Roughly speaking a vote in a small state is worth three votes in a large state.
I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, but it has faults as well.
That's true in some sense, but not really how it plays out.
If you really think about it, votes in large, swing states count way more than anywhere else.
A vote in Florida (a large state) in 2000 was worth more than any vote in any US election ever. Way more than any small state.
So, I can't really buy into the reasoning that small states votes count more.
It is not the Electoral College's fault that most Democrat voters reside in two very populous states that are not currently swing states. That is a Democrat problem. When you pander to specific regions of the country, you will have this problem.
I think you are looking at this conundrum at the wrong point in the process. The ONLY reason why FL was so important in 2000 - was because of the disproportionate impact of the votes in the small state. Without the small states counting more significantly that they do - FL wouldn't have mattered.
If the boot was on the other foot - and Republican were winning the popular vote by significant numbers, I think the EC would be just as big an issue for many of them.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
I'm sure if the roles were flipped, there would be many conservatives that would want to get rid of the Electoral College.
However, I would not be one of them, because I actually understand the role of the Electoral College, and the role States should play in our government.
If we actually followed the Constitution, and what the roles of State governments and the Federal government should be, this would all be a moot point.
Roughly speaking a vote in a small state is worth three votes in a large state.
I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, but it has faults as well.
That's true in some sense, but not really how it plays out.
If you really think about it, votes in large, swing states count way more than anywhere else.
A vote in Florida (a large state) in 2000 was worth more than any vote in any US election ever. Way more than any small state.
So, I can't really buy into the reasoning that small states votes count more.
It is not the Electoral College's fault that most Democrat voters reside in two very populous states that are not currently swing states. That is a Democrat problem. When you pander to specific regions of the country, you will have this problem.
The electoral college allocates 2 votes per senator, one per congressional representative and 3 electoral votes. There is roughly 750,000 people per congressional representative, although there are states like Wyoming that have less. A large state like California has 53 districts 55 total. So the math should be obvious.
I agree the most valuable votes are in the swing states that determine the election. The red/blue banking of votes is still necessary to get to 270, but as far a California is concerned today, my vote is not necessary.
That is the underlying benefit and flaw with the electoral college. Candidates target specific states, and others are ignored.
I don't get your point about Democrats pandering to blue states. One notch down is Texas. If demographics trends hold, Texas will eventually be a blue state and there will be far less chance of a closely contested election going to Republicans. Historically speaking California could go Republican until about 30 years ago. The same with Texas, which had a strong Democratic presence until about 30 years ago.
From a demographics point of view, most of the recent elections have been won by Democrats. The electoral college has favored Republicans. As this trend continue, everything will change.
This is one of the underlying reasons the Republicans fear immigration, as immigrants who become citizens would change the balance which is leaning towards the Democrats.
I would ask you not to read too much into my observations. I am one of the few remaining people that consider my views moderate, and I am looking for that purple party. That said, I acknowledge my disdain of anything and everything Trump.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
Democrats DO pander to metropolitan areas...that's fine for them to do, and it makes sense because metropolitan areas are growing faster than rural areas. But that's what causes their problems in the Electoral College; their platform is too focused.
Just look at it:
Police brutality - Inner city problem Gun violence - Inner city problem LBGT rights - Not many LGBTs in rural areas Immigration reform - not a big issue in most rural areas Getting rid of fossil fuels - would disproportionately get rid of many rural American jobs Getting rid of Trump Tax cuts - would help CA and NY the most as they could write off their enormous state income taxes again
I could go on and on.
As for Texas - Trump got the pretty much the same % of votes as 2016 (52.2% vs. 52.1%), even with historic voter turnout...still seems like Texas is a long way away from flipping blue, especially given the Latino support that Republicans had this election.
It is natural for people to vote for the party whos approach benefits them.
Your listing is an oversimplification of the issues. I will suggest that some of the problems that occurred over the summer were a direct result of an non-response from the President.
Immigration not being an issue for rural areas is laughable.. Obviously you are unaware that there are a lot of immigrants working in agriculture and the meat processing industry.
I look forward to a repeal of the deduction limit, which is unfair. The Trump tax cuts did not change anything for most people, it did benefit corporations and the very wealthy.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
Centrist dems are just lost republicans from the Reagan era. 
Relating a democratic election with Baseball 
