Disagree. Trump's voice is authentic, and his communication is direct and effective.

>my wife actually thought that Feldman was just lip-syncing to a Michael Jackson track, which may be one of most insulting thoughts anyone has ever had about Michael Jackson.

On the contrary, leftists had an obligation to defend Moore against picayune complaints against his films that were illogically suggested to undermine his important points. As usual, we rolled into a ball at the first sign of criticism. We failed him and our cause.

Of course not, but that was a grave error in judgment and we should take it into account before making her the most powerful person in the world.

Your premise is incorrect as is your logic. Not everyone did it. And even if they had, I could still hold it against her.

Moore was such an effective and powerful advocate for left wing causes that the right launched a smear campaign so toxic even you are repeating its canards. Sad!

The old "everyone else did it" defense. Classic.

Her voting to authorize the Iraq war is the result of a right-wing smear?

That's a silly response to people with serious moral quandaries about voting for Clinton and for whom "but Trump is so much worse" is no salve.

You don't know if Farenheit 9/11 made a difference. For all we know, it reduced Bush's margin of victory, and that's important. It also helped to shape our view of Bush historically, which is also important.

>I really have a hard time seeing who still needs to be convinced, let alone, who still needs to be convinced who would also listen to Moore.

If you haven't seen his films, you're in no position to opine on whether he could tell you something you don't already know.

I think Ken comes off looking a lot more reasonable than virtually anyone on this site.

Lol because I don't assume things happened without any evidence.

>>he was probably pretty much entirely justified in killing that baby in its crib

The part I can't reconcile is the whitewashing. Nat Turner killed children. Killed a baby in its crib. That doesn't mean he can't be the subject of a biopic. But I find distorting the historical record in service of modern politics to be ugly and offensive.

Did people overpraise Van Gogh because they felt the Dutch were underrepresented in the post-impressionist period?

There are many principled conservatives. I may not agree with them on many issues, but reducing them to racist caricatures doesn't accomplish anything except providing false sense if superiority.

Fair enough, but there does seem to be a cause and effect in those verses: she had with us, so she's a loser.

She's a loser.
How do you know?
Me and the crew used to do her.