Moore: "Wall Street Has Their Man And His Name Is Barack Obama"

Moore: "Wall Street Has Their Man And His Name Is Barack Obama"

MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, “The Washington post” three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all — than all eight Republicans combined. I don’t want to say that, because if that’s the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we’ve got a much bigger problem.

You have got a much bigger problem. Time to wake up.

MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here’s what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.

Why hasn’t that happened?

BECAUSE HE'S A SELLOUT, A PUPPET.

Moore, denying reality when the puppet is a democrat.

Why does he have to be a puppet?

How about he's a sleazy, dirty Chicago politician? That's a much easier explanation.

Moore has actually been quite consistent when placing blame on either political party. His interview seems very critical of Obama, not a denial of reality.

Am I misunderstanding your premise?

Seems pretty clear that he's tying Obama in with the Wall Street criminals...

Not sure where you're getting any defense for a Democrat

Well he seems to be reluctant to go all out and say that Obama is a sellout.

He hints at it, but never says it plainly. Or maybe I'm reading him wrong.

If Obama were a republican, he would say it plainly.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Here is what I don't know about elections in US.

How every one who is going to be a candidate should have a lot of money to be winner in the election ?

How other variables for choosing the right candidate is affected with money ?

I mean , I Iran , when people see some candidate is using a lot of money to win the election , they get suspicious and the chance to win the election will be law.

Thank you.

Sorry if it seems off-topic.

I love this site. OpenSecrets

Look at any candidate's contributors. Then look at Paul's... It's getting pretty clear that he stands apart.

Originally posted by hmdphantom
How every one who is going to be a candidate should have a lot of money to be winner in the election ?

It takes a LOT of money to run a campaign. TV ads, trips, employees. Those with not much money don't have the means to "sell themselves" to the voting public. It's not how it should be, but it's how it is.

reply to post by hmdphantom


In the United States our want-to-be leaders must raise money in order to campaign. If they want to get an ad on TV it requires money so they have to raise that money from somewhere. When a candidate wants to be able to give speeches, put up billboards, do telephone calls, get his name on the ballot, etc… it all requires money and we all know it does not grow on trees. So they go, cap in hand, to Wall Street begging for money from the fat cat bankers and businessmen who give them the money… at a price. What is that price? Good question, simple answer is: look around.

reply to post by hmdphantom

How every one who is going to be a candidate should have a lot of money to be winner in the election ?

Ads on tv.

How other variables for choosing the right candidate is affected with money ?

Usually... more money = more ads = people see you more = more chance of being elected.

I mean , I Iran , when people see some candidate is using a lot of money to win the election , they get suspicious and the chance to win the election will be law.

Only a minority of people vote that way. The majority just believe the lies and ignore the truth and vote for the puppets.