Michael Moore Endorses Bernie Sanders for President

[Uncle Joe]

This is a good video.

[George II]

1. WHAT??? I'm stunned.

[NNadir]

2. It figures. He has a poor record of endorsing Democrats.

This is the guy who thought that Ralph Nader would make a great President, and worked actively to demean Al Gore.

It worked out great for America, and for that matter, the citizens of Iraq, didn't it?

[Uncle Joe]

4. NOTHING damaged Al Gore's chances more than Bill Clinton

and the corporate media conglomerates; they hated Al precisely he did champion opening the Internet to the people.

The best decision Bill ever made was in choosing Al as his running mate and from that point on he did nothing but undercut him, in the long run ruining his own legacy.

That's how we ended up with Bush, the war in Iraq, Citizens United, the embracement of torture etc. etc. etc.

[George II]

9. That's not true at all. Forget Patrick Buchanan/Ralph Nader/Katherine Harris/butterfly ballot?

[Uncle Joe]

11. Al has but he does chide the "gatekeepers" aka; corporate media conglomerates.

[George II]

25. So where does he blame Bill Clinton? The premise of your post was it was Clinton's fault.

[Uncle Joe]

30. That is the premise of my previous post, I never said Al blamed Bill in that video but

that he has moved on and he does criticize the gatekeepers aka; corporate media conglomerates and big money's effects on politics.

If you want an in-depth analysis try this article by Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/clinton200711

[George II]

32. I lived through that, the LAST thing I would do is blame Bill Clinton for Gore's "loss".

[Uncle Joe]

34. I didn't believe you would but on that we're in sharp disagreement although as

I mentioned before the corporate media conglomerates had a major play in it as well.

[George II]

38. Back in 2000 we didn't have the "corporate media conglomerates" like some think we have today....

Even Fox News was a fledgling enterprise back then, having been founded only four years earlier.

[Uncle Joe]

42. 1. If you actually listened to Al on that video, he referred to them as the "gatekeepers" and the

effects of having to raise big money in buying T.V. ads was bad even in then.

The corporate media started consolidating in 1986 under Reagan but it has gotten worse today.

http://www.globalization101.org/timeline-of-media-mega-mergers-1986-2004/

2. The Internet was practically an infant or small toddler compared to today and didn't have near the power it has now to challenge the corporate media conglomerate gatekeepers.

[LanternWaste]

73. You certainly are consistent in failing to ever provide objective evidence

for just about every allegation you make.

You simply pretend your opinion is a fact... much like the very media you consistently blame (again, without ever providing objective evidence) for Bernie's failure to launch.

Your posts are really nothing more than one bumper-sticker after another. I s'pose that's something that some people would be proud of.

[TwilightZone]

48. Blaming Bill Clinton for Gore's loss is laughable.

Gore lost in part because he chose *not* to involve the best political campaigner in a generation in his campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Bill for all his political skills was poor on substance in not involving the best

Vice-President in history in more critical policy endeavors to which Gore would've been uniquely qualified, eight years in the Congress, eight years in the Senate, the preeminent political leader for opening the Internet to the people and championing the cause of fighting against global warming climate change long before it was popular.

[lapucelle]

87. Wait...what? Your post blames Clinton's apocryphal "undercutting" of his vice president

as much as it blames "corporate media conglomerates" (which didn't actually exist in 2000) for doing the most damage to Gore's chances in 2000.

And it's Bill Clinton who appears to get the primary blame in your headline.

[Uncle Joe]

88. I said "in that video."

I also left you a Vanity Fair link, here it is again.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/11/clinton200711

[lapucelle]

89. YOU blamed Clinton. YOU said "NOTHING damaged Al Gore's chances more than Bill Clinton"

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287330444#post4

[Uncle Joe]

90. That's correct and I just provided you an analysis

as to how it played out, which I guess you never read?

Do you honestly believe Clinton's sexual scandals played out 24/7 over eight years and impeachment helped Al in any way?

[lapucelle]

91. YOU blamed Bill Clinton's apocryphal "undercutting" of Al Gore,

not the sex scandals. You provide no evidence or analysis concerning how Bill Clinton's supposed undercutting of Al Gore led to Bush's election.

[Uncle Joe]

92. From day one of Bill Clinton's first term he was under attack for alleged sexual scandals,

how did he handle it?

[lapucelle]

96. YOUR post puts the primary blame for Gore's defeat squarely on Clinton's shoulders

due to some apocryphal effort on Clinton's part to undercut his Vice President's initiatives.

Changing the subject to investigations of Bill Clinton's sex scandals won't work.

[Uncle Joe]

100. Whether the effort was deliberate or not, Bill Clinton simply didn't care.

He knew the Republicans and corporate media conglomerates had been gunning against him for year on these issues.

[lapucelle]

103. YOU wrote that Bill Clinton did nothing but undercut Al Gore's efforts for 8 years.

The attempt to distract from what YOU wrote about Clinton and Gore won't work.

[Uncle Joe]

104. That was the net effect of Bill Clinton's actions and

I would wager you still never read the Vanity Fair article.

[lapucelle]

107. YOU wrote that Bill Clinton did "nothing but undercut" Al Gore for 8 years.

undercut (noun).
to undermine or destroy the force, value, or effectiveness of

snip=====================================================================

undercut (noun).
to weaken or destroy the impact or effectiveness of; undermine.

snip=====================================================================

undercut (noun).
to weaken, damage, or cause the failure of something; undermine

[Uncle Joe]

108. Yes, that was the net effect of Bill Clinton's actions.

[lapucelle]

109. Your claim is that Bill Clinton did "nothing but undercut" Al Gore for 8 years.

"Nothing but" is not the same as "net effect". How did Bill Clinton "undercut" Al Gore for 8 years?

[Uncle Joe]

110. Obviously you still haven't read the Vanity Fair Article.

[lapucelle]

111. Reading the Vanity Fair article did nothing to convince me of any merit to YOUR claim

that NOTHING damaged Gore's chances more than Bill Clinton and that Clinton did nothing but undercut Al Gore for 8 years.

[Uncle Joe]

113. If that didn't, nothing will

Peace to you lapucelle.

[lapucelle]

112. Why anyone here would choose to blame a popular Democratic president

rather than the third party dissemblers who worked to convince voters that Al Gore was "evil" is beyond comprehension.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (10/14/00)

Speakers assailed Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore as ideologically similar candidates in the pocket of corporate America. They said the two have similar views on trade, foreign policy and the war on drugs.

Mr. Moore, a filmmaker, urged the crowd not to worry that voting for Mr. Nader might help Mr. Bush by taking votes from Mr. Gore.

"The lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil," Mr. Moore said. "You don't make a decision because of fear: you make it on your hopes, your dreams, your aspirations.”

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/supplemental-was-gore-lesser-of-two.html

[redstateblues]

77. Straw men

[Cha]

17. Fucking nader and his TweedleDum & Tweedledee.. and Moore

hawking Nader..



Not to mention this perennial RF... check out that stupid damn look on her face..

[George II]

18. Right, but it's SO much easier to blame Clinton with no proof whatsoever. Hillary forgave him...

...why can't "democrats"?

[Uncle Joe]

21. Hillary wasn't running for President of the United States in 2000.

She was running for a safe Senate seat in blue state New York.

[George II]

33. Hillary Clinton was MARRIED to Bill Clinton in 2000, and still is....

...why all the bashing of the Clintons, Bill AND Hillary?

[Uncle Joe]

36. She was also married to Bill in 92 when these stories came out,

Monica wasn't the first.

The only reason I bring them up is for the posters that want to blame everything on Nader or Moore.

That's history.

[George II]

39. Do you ever say anything POSITIVE about any DEMOCRATS?

[sheshe2]

45. In a word...

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

[Uncle Joe]

46. Al Gore, haven't you been paying attention?

[MrsCoffee]

70. Better Believe It!

[MH1]

101. Ding!

I believe you may have hit on something there.

(I thought something seemed awfully familiar ... even though that seems like eons ago )

[Uncle Joe]

102. See post #46

[Dem4Life1102]

69. Not just history

but reality!

[George II]

71. You just disproved your claim that Bill Clinton was the reason Gore lost....

In 1992 Clinton WON the election despite the "stories".

Yes, that's history.

[Uncle Joe]

81. 1992 was light years from 2000, while Al was well known nationally

the Clintons were fresh new faces on the scene and alleged sexual scandals were just beginning.

Eight years of "bimbo eruptions," of deciphering what the meaning of the word "is" is supposed to be, and a blatant lie to the American People on video drastically changed the political dynamics in the nation.

[sheshe2]

40. There is NO such thing as a safe blue seat.

Massachusetts knows that well when Martha Coakley thought she was a shoe in and ran a bad campaign. WE LOST TED KENNEDY'S seat to Cosmopolitan nude centerfold Scott Brown.

No it wasn't your so called "corporate media conglomerates and big money's effects on politics." that lost us that seat. It was Martha herself that ran a lackluster campaign because she thought she was the anointed one for Teds seat. I watched the whole thing come tumbling down.

Good news is we got Warren next and an awesome Maura Healy as our AG.

[Uncle Joe]

44. New York was/is certainly safer than Tennessee and a host of other states.

[sheshe2]

51. Joe.

Warren. Coakley. Healy and Brown are from MA. MA is a very blue state.

Your post was about how safe Blue states are, one that Hillary was running in. Very, very safe. We sure weren't talkin' about Tennessee or a host of other states. I pointed out that in fact no blue state is ever safe. MA proves that point. Embarrassed to say we here in MA screw up from time to time...usually when people don't vote.

Uncle Joe
44. New York was/is certainly safer than Tennessee and a host of other states.

Seems you are moving some goal posts.

[George II]

53. That was earth shaking when republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's "safe" Senate seat.

[sheshe2]

55. It was.

Then there was Warren who weathered the war woops and won.

lol! Then Scottie beamed himself up to NH to run. Poor Scottie he lost again.

[Uncle Joe]

54. sheshe.

My post to which you responded was Hillary running in New York and as a former First Lady, she had major connections and advantages in a largely blue state.

I understand no state is totally without exceptions but the point still stands, Hillary was running in New York while Al was having to run a national campaign including much more conservative states including Tennessee as just one example.

I'm heading to bed, have a good night.

[sheshe2]

59. Ummmhmmm

Sleep tight.

For when you wake.

A little about Warren. You missed my thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287325662

Warren had huge connections...President Obama.

1.

In 2011, while working as an assistant for President Obama, Warren single-handedly conceived of and established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog agency that helps protect the little guy from Wall Street’s dirty schemes. Thanks to the newly-formed agency, mortgage lenders can no longer push you into a loan you cannot afford. And these servicers now have to make a good faith effort to keep you out of foreclosure. If they don’t, they face hefty civil penalties.

It’s not just mortgage companies and big banks that now have to sleep with their eyes open. Credit card companies also now have to play by the rules. In 2012, the bureau ordered three American Express subsidiaries to pay out $85 million to over 250,000 customers they screwed over through illegal practices.

Warren managed to do all of this even while the GOP did everything in their power to cockblock it. And when they failed that mission, they bitched and moaned and managed to prevent her from being nominated head of the CFPB. She then used their tantrum as a pathway to run for Senate.

And she won. Easily.

3. In only three years, she has sponsored at least 36 bills, including the Equal Employment Act for All, the Schedules That Work Act, the Trade Transparency Act, and the Fed Accountability Act. She consistently fights for legislation that champions for women’s rights, paid family leave, low-wage workers, fair trade and affordable education.


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/9/1524727/-Elizabeth-Warren-s-List-of-Accomplishments-is-Bigger-than-Trump-s-Hanging-Chad

Obama urged her to run for the Senate after the GOP tried to destroy her nomination to chair an agency she created. She withdrew her name after repeated attacks because they feared her.

Hahahaha. Now she is the senior Senator from MA and they fear her more.

Boom. In a short time she has done more than most have in their lifetime.

Elizabeth.

[lapucelle]

93. NY had a Republican senator from 1981-1999 and a Republican governor from 1995-2006. N/T

[Uncle Joe]

94. See post #54. n/t

[lapucelle]

97. That doesn't help make your case. I live in NY.

[Cha]

22. Perhaps if Gore had used Pres Clinton in his

campaign instead of running away from him and then choosing that pious traitor Liebermann he would have gotten more Votes!

[Uncle Joe]

26. In moderate to conservative states, Bill was toxic at that point and with

his actions left Al with no choice.

Personally I would've loved to see Al pick a different running mate than Liebermann but that was also a result of Clinton's short sighted, self serving messing around with subordinate Monica Lewinsky, he screwed her life up as well.

[George II]

41. Which "moderate states" did Al Gore lose? I don't see any. So now Bill Clinton is responsible...

....for Al Gore choosing Lieberman? REALLY? Unbelievable.

[TwilightZone]

49. Agreed.

Choosing not to involve the best political campaigner of his generation in the campaign was a significant problem.

Blaming Clinton for the loss is laughable.

[Cha]

57. It's ridiculous to blame President

Clinton for Gore's loss.

Like is was ridiculous for nader, MM, SS to push bush and Gore were the same.

The "Green" party my Democratic They've gotten us further and further away from the actual ability to deal with Global Climate Change. They should change their name to the RF party.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Bernie Sanders interviews Al Gore

[JudyM]

56. Interesting! Thanks for posting this gem, Uncle Joe.

Sane politics. Love this.

[George II]

27. Is that Julian Assange in one of your photos?

[Cha]

31. Moore & and his good buddy, ASSange..

who pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy bullshit..

Mueller report says WikiLeaks pushed Seth Rich conspiracies

snip//

The report said that statements by WikiLeaks and Assange about Rich "implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails."

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/439652-mueller-report-squashes-seth-rich-conspiracy-theory

[NNadir]

12. Really? The people who said Gore was the same as Bush had nothing to do with it?

It was all Bill Clinton's fault?

Oh, right, I get it. It's a Democrat's fault. The people for whom the Democrats are not "good enough," given their holiness, have no fault whatsoever.

You know something? I was around in 2000, when there were people complaining that Bush was the same as Gore.

I wonder how that felt to a child under a cloud of falling cluster bombs in Bagdad. Think they'd agree?

Think they'd agree with Michael Moore on that score, Bush is the same as Gore?

That's an interesting perspective, not one to which I give an iota of credence, but the fact remains, that Michael Moore is just another one of those people who thinks that the Democrats are the problem and not the people who get into office because Democrats don't.

It figures that Moore endorses Sanders. Sanders, like Moore, is too pure for Democrats. He, like Moore, is a sainted fool.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Al Gore was and is a Democrat.

Where you around to hear the continuous 24/7 drumbeat of slander/libel by the corporate media conglomerates or "gatekeepers" that "Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet?"

Snopes called it "media mirth-making" but it was powerful adverse propaganda tearing at Al's credibility particularly when coupled with Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman; Monica Lewinsky" and then have Al go out on the White House lawn and defend him on the eve of impeachment knowing that it was all a lie and would jeopardize Gore's political chances.

That had infinitely greater impact on the millions of Americans that view their daily "news" particularly Americans living in purple or red states.

Did Al Gore Say ‘I Invented the Internet’?

(snip)

Despite the multitudinous derisive references to the supposed quote that continue to be proffered even today, former U.S. vice president Al Gore never claimed that he “invented” the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The legend arose from critics and pundits who plucked a relatively credible statement Gore made during the course of an interview, altered its wording, and stripped it of context to make it seem a ridiculously self-serving falsehood.

The “Al Gore claimed he ‘invented’ the Internet” put-downs were misleading distortions that originated with a campaign interview conducted by Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition program on 9 March 1999. (Gore, then the sitting Vice President, was seeking the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination.)

In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning: the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having thought up, designed, or implemented it, but rather asserting that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense.

The claim that Gore was actually trying to take credit for the “invention” of the Internet was plainly just derisive political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. If, for example, Dwight Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System,” he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet.

(snip)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/internet-of-lies/

Why do you believe the corporate media conglomerates couldn't bring themselves to give Al credit for this vision and perseverance?

[NNadir]

63. Thanks for the distraction, but I was talking about Michael Moore. Michael Moore endorsed...

...Ralph Nader in 2000 or did he not?

Ralph Nader said that Gore was the same as Bush. Did he not?

This had nothing to do with anyone claiming a relationship between Al Gore and the internet.

I am saying that Michael Moore is a fucking political idiot, and his current endorsement does nothing more than remind me that he's a fucking idiot.

Got it?

No?

Go ahead and change the subject then. That's modern politics, and represents the precise reason that we have a fucking idiot in the White House, because people change the subject to mindless crap that doesn't matter.

But her emails...

[Cha]

64. ...

Thank youNNadir!

[redstateblues]

76. It's unbelievable that there are still apologists for Nader whose narcissism gave us Bush

who gave us the Iraq war.

[Cha]

84. Yeah, it is.. a huge problem.

[lapucelle]

98. Moore told voters right before the 2000 election that Gore was "the lesser of two evils".

From the Daily Howler in 2015.

Back in November 2000, was Candidate Gore the lesser of two evils?

snip===================================================================

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (10/14/00)

Speakers assailed Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore as ideologically similar candidates in the pocket of corporate America. They said the two have similar views on trade, foreign policy and the war on drugs.

Mr. Moore, a filmmaker, urged the crowd not to worry that voting for Mr. Nader might help Mr. Bush by taking votes from Mr. Gore.

"The lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil," Mr. Moore said. "You don't make a decision because of fear: you make it on your hopes, your dreams, your aspirations.”

****************************************************************************************

Was Candidate Gore the lesser of two evils? If he had gone to the White House, would we “still have ended up with evil?”

However a person chose to vote, we think those statements tilted a bit toward the foolish side. That said, the views expressed were widespread at the time.

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/06/supplemental-was-gore-lesser-of-two.html

[still_one]

66. Brilliant!!!

[Me.]

72. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[ehrnst]

82. ++++1000!

[Uncle Joe]

83. "Distraction?" You replied to my post #4 and I answered it.

NOTHING damaged Al Gore's chances more than Bill Clinton

and the corporate media conglomerates; they hated Al precisely he did champion opening the Internet to the people.

The best decision Bill ever made was in choosing Al as his running mate and from that point on he did nothing but undercut him, in the long run ruining his own legacy.

That's how we ended up with Bush, the war in Iraq, Citizens United, the embracement of torture etc. etc. etc.

Anything that Nader said as an opposing candidate was of minor importance or impact when compared to the constant drumbeat of slander and libel propaganda by the corporate media conglomerates and Bill Clinton's transgressions only served to give them more ammunition which they transferred on to Al Gore.

The corporate media conglomerates' megaphone was infinitely larger than any individual including Nader, especially before the Internet grew strong enough to become a counter balance.

As for Michael Moore, he followed his conscious which I believe every American should strive to do whether you or I agree with them or not.

Got that?

[George II]

85. Bush "won" Florida by about 600 votes, Nader got 98,000 votes in Florida.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with that.

Even 19 years later some still want to blame Bill Clinton for everything. It's sad.

[NNadir]

95. It's really depressing how many issues people address with a mindless, singular catch all phrase.

I'm a scientist who has spent decades studying climate change on a deeper level than almost everyone I meet.

It is an enormous engineering and scientific challenge.

What do a certain class of airheads attribute it's cause to being?

"Corporations."

To what do they attribute racism?

"Corporations."

Al Gore being denied the Presidency?

"Corporations."

A fucking paranoid lunatic named Ralph Nader runs around claiming that Al Gore was a homicidal as George W. Bush had no effect whatsoever, correct?

A movie director who makes his living off complaining that Republicans are in power endorsing the paranoid idiot Ralph Nader had nothing to do with it, correct?

It is amusing how people with such a simplistic and narrow view of the world claim that people who actually know how to think on a profound and detailed level are controlled by "corporate megaphones."

I am aware of what the pathetic airhead Michael Moore regards as what some people call his "his conscious" (sic) by which we may assume that the intent was discuss his conscience. (From my perspective there are few people as unconscious as Michael Moore.

He of course, can be assumed by people whose world view is limited to blaming all the world's problems on presumed all powerful corporations, as being innocent of ulterior motives, even though he did sell movie tickets and other stuff much more easily when a Republican was in power dropping cluster bombs on civilians, than he would have had Al Gore been in the White House.

Personally I don't regard him as having a meaningful conscience, since one only develops a conscience when one is aware of the consequences of one's actions.

If he has a conscience, it is either the conscience of a fool or a snake oil salesman. He makes his living off the fact that right wingers have political power. That's a fact.

If we had a president who resisted the NRA, one wonders whether ticket sales for a movie like "Bowling for Columbine" would have sold as well. Now, people, children, died at Columbine, and somehow the "wit" of putting a title including "Bowling" strikes me as cold and unfeeling given that real human mourning, for children, was involved, but man tickets did sell, didn't they?

Whatever.

I am personally sick and tired of simpletons shouting "corporate! corporate! corporate!" to address every problem on the face of the Earth. These are people who have a poor record of seeking out reality in books, lectures and other sources of deep information.

I note that in the issue most important to me, climate change, the same people who want to blame the problem on the grand boogeyman, the other (as represented by "corporate demons" in the case of some candidates) do in fact, use fossil fuels themselves.

We are all guilty in that issue, in climate change. Most of the electricity to run this website is generated by the combustion of dangerous fossil fuels. Therefore when I look at the cause of climate change, I can understand a portion of the responsibility for it by looking in a mirror. It has something to do, of course, with corporations, but the real cause, as much on the left as on the right, is ignorance and indifference, including but not limited to, my own actions.

Similarly many of us, including those "protesting" the corporate bogeyman to explain why awful people like George W. Bush and Donald Trump are allowed to set foot in the White House, much less live there, are all clearly guilty of being sheep if the only reason they see for these outcomes is corporations. There was no chance in hell that I was going to be influenced by a political ad, and I'm certainly not influenced by simplistic rhetoric that everything in the world can be addressed by replacing all the world's corporations with whatever mindless people assume will replace them in their vague intimations of nirvana.

Real problems can only be addressed by considering the details and relationships of their causes, and not by chanting, "Corporations!" or any other slogan, including but not limited to, the equally airhead slogan, "Make America Great Again." Both are simplistic, and both are not worthy of serious attention.

Have a great weekend.

[Uncle Joe]

99. Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

(snip)

But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”

(snip)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Al Gore was well known for his political role in warning about global warming long before "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, I have an autographed "Earth in the Balance" book from him.

Now if Exxon knew global warming was for real in 1977 just as the tobacco corporations knew their products caused cancer decades before but hid it, why wouldn't the corporate media conglomerates have known this with all their resources, investigatory powers and statements from virtually the entire scientific community?

The issue of global warming climate change was virtually ignored in the 90s by them, by far much more airtime was given to Bill Clinton's sexual scandals.

What kind of impact do you believe this could've had on the 2000 election if they had treated this issue seriously as the national/global threat that it was/is.

[redstateblues]

13. Nader denialism lives. Amazing that some still cling to the idea that

Nader didn’t hand the Presidency to the Republicans. The numbers still don’t lie after all these years.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Corporate media conglomerate and big money denialism is more like it. n/t

[redstateblues]

35. Straw men that Nader fans like to blame. Who can forget Nader's slogan

“Not a dime’s worth of difference”? Nader is a narcissist who helped elect Bush and is partially to blame for the Iraq war. It’s amazing there are still Nader apologists out there.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I wasn't a Nader fan, I supported Al Gore but if you read my other posts

on this thread you will see that I believe there were much bigger adversaries or drags against Al in 2000.

I also believe that Al believes that as well.

[OldRed2450]

43. Bill Clinton is responsible for the Iraq war?

I thought Clinton was a great president and so did most Americans.

[Dem4Life1102]

68. Actually

Gore's campaign was criticized for not using Clinton more in certain battleground states.

Nader, who accepted GOP money to run attack ads against Gore, did more to hurt Gore than anyone else.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

74. He supported Clinton against Trump, too.

We can probably blame her loss on him if we try a little bit.

[NNadir]

80. There is no one cause for these two events that led...

...Republicans rejected by the simple majority of Americans occupying the White House.

There are however, people who worked actively for the outcome; and those who worked actively against it.

What Moore did in 2016 does not excuse 2000, which was to work for the outcome obtained.

The are people who elevate the perfect over the good, albeit with the caveat that their vision of what "perfect" actually is reflects even in the most generous assessment, muddled thinking.

Now, there are many things about Al Gore that do not jive with my personal views. This said, America would have stayed a great country had he prevailed in the election decided by a politicized Supreme Court. Hundreds of thousands of human beings killed in unnecessary warfare would still be alive.

I have no use for Moore, and no use for his smug sarcastic view of decency and justice.

Yes he got to sell books and movie tickets because of the outcome, but this certainly calls into question his view of his own personal nobility.

I think him ethically unappealing.

[DURHAM D]

3. Who cares... nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. You, enough to respond.

😂

[Skittles]

5. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Beringia]

6. Yay

[Funtatlaguy]

14. There are so many "celebrities " that I wish would just go away.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

20. That's fine ..

I'm just curious who MM will endorse in the general election...

[still_one]

23. He also endorsed Ralph Nader, and predicted both McCain and Romeny would win

[Cha]

47. Yeah, & MM said "..all President Obama would be known

for is being the first Black President".

What comes out of moore's mouth isn't impressive.

[beastie boy]

24. Somehow, this sounds strangely familiar...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=12964314
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12964104
https://www.democraticunderground.org/1287315428

By the way, Michael Moore endorses Bernie Sanders!

[Uncle Joe]

28. Thanks for the heads-up beastie boy.

[beastie boy]

29. Good do hear from you, Uncle!

[NanceGreggs]

52. Once upon a time ...

... that would have meant something.

Nowadays, not so much.

[myohmy2]

58. "I know where I came from."

"And that is something I'll never forget."

...authentic, is an understatement...Bernie's one of us...


...thanks Mike, and may God Bless...

"...not only can he win, Bernie will win!"


...'Not Me , Us'...Bernie WILL win...make book on it...

...

[betsuni]

60. Sounds like MM endorses BS because he got arrested once in college for protesting.

No mention of any legislation and accomplishments during his actual career. In the sixties many young people were active politically, many got arrested. I just read Alice Waters book "Coming to My Senses" and her and her friends' activism was extensive in college. Maybe young people don't know this. Some of them were so serious about activism that they worked for places like the Children's Defense fund after college, and of course voted in every election. I don't think saying someone is "authentic" means anything. I want someone who's good at their job and gets results, like any other situation.

[evertonfc]

61. terrible news

for Bernie.

[Gothmog]

62. Who cares?

I stopped paying attention to this failed film maker a long time ago.

[RandiFan1290]

65. K&R

Love seeing the right get their knickers twisted over Michael Moore and Bernie

[NurseJackie]

67. How precious!

[LanternWaste]

75. This is troubling for Bernie. Disqualifying. I'm concerned.

(I've learned from you all I have to do is make the allegation... and never support it with data, but simply with more allegation, much like the current administration often does, but I'm quite sure that it's different when you do it)

[SWBTATTReg]

78. He's entitled to do whether he wants. I don't care. I'm still going to do what I'm going to do,...

regardless of what he does. More power to all of us!

[LovingA2andMI]

79. Okay.

Okay. Will not make us change our candidate of choice but, okay.

[Joe941]

86. Another huge endorsement for Bernie.

He has been on a roll these past few weeks!

[Uncle Joe]

106. Yes he has Joe.

[cmeneer]

105. Well that figures

That’s the one candidate I have zero enthusiasm for. He’s not a Democrat. And then there’s Nina Turner...a proven anti-dem.