Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election!

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 10, 2012, 9:39 p.m. EST by TerriLee (-24)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election!

As it is the system we oppose, let's reject it!

Join in calling for an organized and very public Boycott of the 2012 Presidential Election!

Reject the electoral system of oppression.

308 Comments

308 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

So, the right's attempts to disenfranchise the electorate will be helped by you?

Yeah, sure, great idea.

Rejecting the system doesn't make it go away; it strengthens the worst parts of it. If the politicians don't feel they have voters to be accountable to, they will feel even freer to steal even more.

Opposing a system requires replacing it or reforming it, not ignoring the fact that it exists. Does the man with the gun stop being dangerous because you reject him? Or do you try to disarm him first?

Abstaining, or voting for a non-viable third party candidate hands power to the farthest right reactionaries. They won't give up THEIR vote simply because you do.

[-] 3 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

The point is to stay away from the dangerous man. I use a different analogy. If I went in the only grocery store to find two items, molded bread and spoiled meat, which do I choose? Neither. I will come back when the food is good and in the meantime, work on my own harvest outside and away from the grocery store.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

NO, the point is that as long as you live here prior to the system changing, you are subject to its laws. You can't stay away from the dangerous man. He surrounds you. There is no escape.

We (I say we because I'm old enough to have been there) thought the same thing you are thinking back in 1969. We made a show of not supporting the Democratic Party. We thought they were the same as the Democrats. What we got was NIXON and FOUR MORE YEARS OF WAR.

Two Supreme Court Judges will probably retire in the next couple of years. Reagrdless of any legislative agenda, the two parties have consitently apointed differnt kinds of people to that court. One party appoointed Kagan and Ginsburg. The other Scaliia and Thomas. One side of teh court voted against Citizens United, the other voted for it. Scalia and Thomas have already indicated that they would overturn civil rights laws, Roe v wade, and render a host of other nefarious rulings. Do YOU want to see a return to back alley abortions? I don't.

Activism matters. So does voting. Doing only one or the other is a FALSE CHOICE, based on ideology alone. That can get lots of women very dead.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

actually Nixon ended the war

The War in Vietnam, 1969-1973.

apparently, that is an impeachable crime

no wait, Nixon was busted for spying on the democrats

a far cry from Bush lying to incite war

.

epicenter don't lie

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The last troops came home in 1975, two years after the peace accord was signed. They could have come home in 1969, if Nixon hadn't extended the war.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Damned straight. The war ended because the troops refused to carry it out. That was why they ended the draft, and now favor "private security forces."

If people aren't spooked by the words "private security forces," than they need their head examined.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ok

sorry

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

True, but he also shoved the war-on-some-drugs down the throats of every country in the UN, not sure what the world wide death toll is 40 years later, not to mention the POWs, but considering the number of corpses piling up each day in Mexico...

Like you say, credit where credit is due; but it was also ended in the face of massive public pressure.

[-] 1 points by bob194 (1) 2 years ago

"What we got was NIXON and FOUR MORE YEARS OF WAR." Do you really think Humphrey was going to end the war? It was Johnson who invaded South Vietnam in 1965.

"One party appointed Kagan and Ginsburg. The other Scaliia and Thomas." And Republican Bush illegally wiretapped and tortured people. The Democrat Obama, on the other hand, has not only continued that, but declared his right to assassinate U.S. citizens extra-judicially -- and has actually carried it out.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup, Humphrey was committed to ending the war. Nixon, on the other hand scuttled the Paris Peace talks prior to the election so Humphrey and the Democrats would look like they failed. It was actual treason.

What Obama continued by way of Bush policies is criminal as far as I'm concerned. But that changes nothing regarding the Supreme court, your attempted misdirection of the issue notwithstanding.

[-] 0 points by jerseydevil (-11) 2 years ago

" Do YOU want to see a return to back alley abortions?"

Fear mongering and lies.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Truth and reality. I am not after all a stupid Republican or ever dumber Libartardian. The need for abortions won't go away because they are criminalized. It simply means they will be performed unsafely, and women will die. Even the two semi-functioning brain cells in your head should be able to understand that.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Only when they bump into each other....must not happen too often.

[-] -2 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Once again, you are incorrect. Voting is NOT law, but a right.

Your age is not in-question. Were you there on Bloody Sunday? The point is, rather than hearing sermons about what blacks went through these are histories not lost on me. And with that history in-mind, I agree that boycotting is the solution.

As for Nixon, your analysis misses a point. Approximately 32% of blacks voted for him! But let's also be clear about the Dems. Check the record magnitudes more died over the past 100 years in war prosecuted by Dems. Further, Johnson expanded Vietnam on the Gulf of Tonkin lie! Dems are GOP and GOP are Dems when war is on the table.

I appreciate The Supreme Court argument. But quite frankly, I don't see a doomsday, boogeyman scenario that you outline. The fact is, I see egregious decisions that hurt us as much under Dems as they do under the GOP.

I say, vote if that is what you must. But change is not now nor has EVER been a majority sport.

And if I had time to go into Civil Rights legislation backlash, there are Left influences that hurt Civil Rights as much as Right influences. The Boston liberals took to the street in 74' during school desegregation. And the same contractors who wanted Stimulus dollars shut-out African Americans.

Our beginning of real humanity will begin in the recognition of the inhumanity that both parties carry. I am firm on electoral boycotting and have not heard a compelling case to change that position.

[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

The way our system works, if 99.9% of the country doesn't vote, the election is left in the hands of the 0.1% who do. The fewer people get out and vote the fewer people actually have a say in what's going on, and the more likely things are to keep deteriorating. If you don't like the current slate, get people together and propose your own slate. Simply not voting when you're still subject to American law is like going to work every day and then not collecting your salary in order to "punish" your boss.... and it will have the same impact.

Incidentally, there is empirical proof that not voting not only fails to help but can actually hurt. Between a third and half of the country already does this, be it out of apathy or an impulse to boycott, every presidential election cycle and the numbers are even more miserable on midterm years. Look where it got us. When people fail to vote it's almost always the poor and the working class who don't vote, and that tends to have nasty consequences for our social safety net, corporate regulations, etc. I've actually written a paper on it; if you want more information just go here: http://ge.tt/8j7Yuz9

On top of that, I would argue that we need to do better than just voting; we need to co-opt the 2012 elections on the level of individual races. Remember Charlie Rangel? Despite voicing public support for OWS, Rangel turned around and voted for a free trade agreement which is most likely going to ship even more jobs overseas and runs contrary to the founding principles of the movement. This is despicable, and a fair number of people on here ought to be pretty pissed. Here's my question to those of you who don't want to see this sort of behavior continue: When's the next round of Democratic primaries, then? And which OWS organizers are in Harlem and willing to locate and get behind a challenger for Rangel's seat? This is why we need our own slate of people running for office. If we want to get real change then we're going to need to offer real people willing to run for office and able to win; we can't trust people like Rangel to vote with their constituents and the general election offers us a choice between lip service and outright hostility. If, however, we unseat Rangel in the primaries, then we can probably put our man through the general election with little opposition and we'll have our very first OWS'er in DC.

The thing is, if we try this for Rangel and succeed (which we should) then it sends a message to the rest of DC that they have to start taking us into account if they want to keep their jobs. The Tea Party did it, the Populists did it, the Green Party does it on occasion, and generally speaking it works. Citizens United allows us to build and fund an OWS superPAC, essentially a war chest that we can spend on our candidates across the country. Now, we'd obviously not start soliciting corporate funding for it because that goes against everything we stand for, but imagine the power that an independently aligned national coalition of small donors would have to influence this country during elections season. We could throw our people (actual OWS'ers with community organization/activism/legal backgrounds or OWS sympathizers in that category) into Democratic and Republican primaries across the country, and even if we only take one or two seats most legislators will think of the Tea Party and be less willing to ignore our interests.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

maybe, but ive been voting for years, and rarely does anything i vote on pass, none of the presidents I voted for since ross perot have won. i have voted against every tax increase for local bonds to build schools or for clean water whatever, but they always pass. Yet if you come to my house and drink my water, im sure you will get sick just like we do.

[-] -1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

You do you. I can respond but both our positions are solid. I am proud to be a 2012 BOYCOTTER!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Voting is not law? What are you responding to?

And what do masses of Boston residents have to do with the makeup of the Supreme court? (How do you even know the rioters were liberals, btw? Was there a poll? Left backlash against civil rights as bad as right backlash? Are you kidding me? I don't recall left-controlled lynchings. I remember the right doing it, several times. Do you have any idea how bad things were before legislation AND the courts changed things? Any at all? Watching a documentary on PBS doesn't quite do it. That change WAS a "majority sport." Without the majority, that legislation could not have passed. And that high court does not to need the popular majority. It's what makes it so powerful.)

Take a look at the makeup of the current court. Take a long look at their respective voting records on women's right, the death penalty, civil rights, corporate rights. Guess what? There is a distinct and real pattern of difference. And those differences fall along largely traditional party lines. And those differences have CONSEQUENCES.

You don't see a doomsday? Why are you an activist? Don;t you want to change things because things are really shitty right now? D you really want them to be shittier?

There is no defense for not voting except either being blinded by ideology or being completely unaware of the power of the court.

[-] -1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

First, I am responding to you opening statement, "NO, the point is that as long as you live here prior to the system changing, you are subject to its laws."

As for much of the other things you stated, read the thread. You'll get it. If not, I will give you a hint. The boogeyman tactic to scar voters waste their time on Dems posits a virtuous Left and a vicious Right. To that I say, it's a false narrative. Liberals have been just as egregious and use historical examples. I don't buy the pie you're selling that somehow doomsday will come if the Dems lose. I say the current administration scars me as much as (if not more than) the last.

I see the Obama regime as easily manipulated by elites as any Republican. I see Obama's appointment as disturbing, policies as troubling, and perspectives as dangerous. So, rather than buy molded bread or spoiled meat, I will not be shopping in 2012!

As for your last comment, I need neither your permission nor offer no excuses. I am PROUDLY saying NO to participating in an impersonation of democracy in 2012. I won't go into details, but trust me, I'm the last person on this thread who can be manipulated by political charades or party pundits - even you. I stand with the boycotters.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's precisely the rhetoric that got us Nixon.

The Supreme Court is real. Its power is real. Its decisions effect everyone.

You are in an ideological fog if you don't see that. It is not a Boogey-man. The right-leaning members of the court have already expressed a willingness (an eagerness, really) to revisit Roe v Wade. That's not a false narrative. Sometimes if a train is coming right at you, you have to get off the track. Sometime being scared is the wisest thing to be.

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

The reason for many people not voting is that they feel that by not voting, they are not subject to the laws of whoever wins. "If I don't vote then the new laws won't affect me because I didn't support any candidate." it's incredibly naive.

[-] -3 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

So I assume you agree with your master Obamas two appointments to the courts.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Although he is not my master, his court appointments have been reasonable. I would have preferred far more to the left, but at least they weren't assholes like Scalia or Roberts.

[-] -3 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Neither of them have any business on that court. Neither is even remotely qualified. They filled an Affirmative Action quota. Nothing more.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Racist prick.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Truth hurts doesn't it? Don't piss on me because I tell a politically incorrect truth.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Not politically incorrect. Just racist, pure and simple.

[-] -3 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

as pertaining to back alley abortions, what other women do is their own business, not ours.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Moron, they would be FORCED to. 25% of women in this country have terminated their pregnancies safely. If you want to take that safety away from fully one quarter of all women, you should stick to fucking yourself, because no woman in her right mind would go near you.

[-] 2 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Is Moron how you open a conversation when you can't successful make your points or mount a strong position?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Just how I respond to morons who don't give a shit about women. And how I respond to those who are too stupid or blind to take a look around them and realize that lots of people they know have had abortions.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

i think abortions are sick and murder. but i don't think they should be Illegal. If murders want to kill their off spring let them, why force people like that to breed. I only wish there was a way after they have the abortion, to abort them too.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"People like that" are your sisters, cousins, friends. 25% of ALL women. Your wish to kill them is pure misogyny.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

i don't have sisters.. don't know my cousins and i would defriend them

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You sound pretty lonely. I'm not surprised.

I'm sure, given your hatred of women in general, most would "de-friend" you in a heartbeat.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

who said i hate women.. i don't hate anyone.. i just love life. and believe in capital punishment

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Since 25% of all American Women have had abortions, and you expressed a wish for them to die, you don't rank as someone who likes, or even understands in the least, women.

And let's be very clear. It not life you love, but you interpretation of it. You love your idea, and your idea only. Women the bearers of life, have nothing to do with what you love.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

First were are you getting this 25%

Second if you advocate killing babies in the name of Womens rights. Were do you draw the line. Pre-Conception? Conception? First trimester, Second? right before you cut the cord? What about after the baby is born.

I studied this in ethics. you should check out Peter Singer's stance.


Peter Singer- Introduction

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide


why stop at 30 days, you can loosely morally defend yourself and say two years i should be able to kill my son. He will not remember anything, He can't live on the fruits of his own labor? he shouldn't have any rights to life. My disposition to weather he lives or dies should be my right.

why two years? lets say until he can support himself? how about 25? 25 is when a persons brain finally fully develops! yes yes kill under 25 shouldn't be crime!! well fuck what about the elderly kill those fuckers too.

Cmon

Women & men give up some of their rights of free will when the spreed their legs and unzip their fly. Then its called responsibility. But i still agree with you, it should be legal. I just as assume that it is evil, but why should the law stop evil people from killing themselves or their off spring. They shouldn't but yes morally it is evil.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Right now the line is draw by law. It is the best solution we have available in an area where there are no good solutions.

Half of all pregnancies are accidental, Half of those are terminated. That make 25% of pregnancies. Since virtually all women get pregnant at some point if their lives, virtually 25% of them receive abortions.

The figures are from the US Census Bureau.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

like i said let the woman do what they want, its none of my business, try not to make it yours. This is called freedom. If you are worried about them being judged Im pretty sure there will be a judge.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Do you think women WANT to go for back alley abortions and risk their lives? Are you insane?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

so by your tone i assume, u prefer women be told what they should do, and individual choice, (my tone is out the door of insanity) got it!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You said that if women CHOOSE to have back alley abortions, forced to do so because the law doesn't permit them to have safe ones in a medical facility, it is none of your concern. Being forced into that is not a choice. Get it?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

no i dont get it, both of my points say let the woman choose for herself, but now you are saying forced. Who is now forcing the woman, that was volunteering for herself what she wanted to do with her own body under my comment/scenario. Did god make her do it, or was it the devil, or the government. Cause im anti government.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You're anti common sense. In the very first post i wrote that you responded to, I said forced. It is not a new concept I'm introducing now. If women can't get abortions safely, they are forced to get them unsafely. Circumstances you can't begin to imagine in your teensy little brain put them in that situation. And until you can get pregnant, you will never know. That you don't understand that is pretty pathetic. That you make declarations that you don't give a shit about what happens to these women is beyond narcissism. It is contemptible.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, it would become a state issue. How many states do you think would ban abortion?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The entire deep South. If safety for women is a right, it is a national one.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

I doubt any state would. And if 1 or 2 did, there are things called cars and busses that travel quickly across roads that connect to other states.

The very few women I know that did have abortions, deeply regret it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And criminalizing abortion would lead to to more back alley abortion, so instead of your acquaintances feeling regret, they could be scarred for life or dead.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

No one I know had an abortion because their health was at risk. In the case of rape, incest, or serious health issues for the mother, then I can certainly understand abortion. But I'll bet 90% of abortions are done because pregnancy is inconvenient.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Whatever the reason, a back alley abortion is dangerous, and criminalizes what is a woman's deeply personal choice. What you understand or condone is not the issue: unless you can get pregnant, you will never know.

[-] -3 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

If a woman doesn't want to risk pregnancy, maybe keeping her panties on would be a good start.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yeah, accidents never happen. Since half of all pregnancies are unintentional, you just succeeded in calling 50% of all women idiots. Congratulations, you misogynistic, stupid fuck.

[-] -3 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

No, just the ones that kill their babies for the sake of convenience.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's 25% of all women in the United States. You would rather they be killed in a back alley. Go hang yourself with your bronzed umbilical cord.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Neither he nor I are against OWS, but I don't want to see things get worse in the meantime because people decided that elections weren't worth paying attention to or participating in. By all means, stay out on the streets, but that can't be all OWS does or it's going to wind up as a much-derided footnote in a Texas textbook and neither you nor I nor he would like to see that happen. There is a path toward real power for OWS, but it would require basically the exact opposite of what you're suggesting if it's going to work.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Consider voting libertarian or green or for some independent, that is what will really scare the hell out of them. That way you're not apathetic, your choosing an alternative.

Even if you disagree with the other platforms, just chose one randomly to make it clear you are dissatisfied with the status quo. At least that's my thoughts.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I will be voting

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Thank You epa1inter!!!

After that I don't have to say 1 damn thing!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

is the party that opposes "the far right"

"the further up party" or is it the "way back party" ?

[-] 0 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Left is Right and Right is Left. So which Right are you referring to here? Boycott 2012 and get out of the Matrixx!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yeah, sure, The right to choose is the same as forcing back alley abortions. Gun control is the same as hunting squirrels with a fully automatic machine gun. Gay marriage is the same as the Defense of Marriage Act. Citizens United is the same as campaign finance reform. Tax breaks for the wealthy is the same as progressive taxes.

What you been smokin, ?

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Both parties [D & R] are the same. They both side with the moneyed elite. They have only created the illusion that there are differences - but it is only what they say, while what they do is exactly the same. The electorate has never been enfranchised. Right or left. The Democrats have been very effective in subduing their base by 'scaring' them with how stupid and crazy the Republicans are. Just look at the current crop of Republican candidates and how absurd they are. The people who really decide who gets elected and benefit the most from who is POTUS want you to be so worried about one of these 'crazies' winning that you will overlook any misgivings you have about Obama [you know .. like all the wars he's continued and the new ones he's started ... ] and sigh with relief when he wins. And they will win - again - because he will continue on his imperialistic streak transferring what's left of this country's wealth into the hands of the few. Dismantling every social program to do it. And you will sigh with relief and not even notice that the Emperor has no clothes. Because, those Republican candidates sure were crazy.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

There ARE still some differences. Certainly not nearly as much as either of us want, but the differences exist. And they exist in the one place that's the most important: nominations to the Supreme Court.

Most likely two SC judges will retire during the next term. One party is SURE to appoint another Scalia, Thomas Alito or Roberts. The other party would just as surely appoint a Kagan, Ginsburgh, Sotamayor. Do you really think one side will uphold Roe v Wade when it will come up? Do you think one side won't uphold Citizens United if it comes up again? The voting records are very clear on these issues, and they fall clearly along old fashioned party lines.

I really don't care for this president. I agree that he is nearly as much a corporate shill as Romney et al. But I have no doubt at all that when it comes to the court appointments, ignoring the differences that still exist is the most foolish, self righteously destructive thing a person can do.

That's not to say we should only go and vote. the system, really does need to change, and dramatically. But until those changes can be put solidly in place, the pace of continuing damage must be slowed.

I am suggesting that it is not an either/or proposition. Such a proposition is a false choice. We must fight, AND we must make sure even more reactionaries that COULD DO US REAL AND LASTING HARM, do not get as much ammunition to do so. Vote AND take to the streets. Both are necessary.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yeah and Obama will tell the Catholics that they have to provide birth control?

This is the control you want and you are going to get it.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup. I think ALL women should have equal health care options, even if they work for a patriarchal organization that doesn't give a shit about them.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

That's the point. You want to push your ideas on to everybody. You believe that every woman should have the ability to prevent and terminate a pregnancy and that some other organization should pay for it. There goes our liberty.

Next up will be termination of life when battling a disease.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, I want women to have a CHOICE not determined by an employer. Taking away their choices is in opposition to THEIR liberty.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

They know who they are working for when they accept the job. Nobody is forcing them to work for the Catholics. They can go work for the SEIU and sit in a DMV office and pay their dues to the union.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Riiiiiight. there are SO many jobs, people can simply pick and choose. Tell me another one. That one was funny.

The Catholic Church is a corporate citizen. It hires the public of all faiths to staff its hospitals and universities. It is subject to the same laws as every other corporate citizen is. It is exempt from those laws in its seminaries, convents and churches. It religious freedoms to pray and preach and convince its followers that their way is the right way is not infringed upon. It may not impose its doctrine on non-pastoral hospital employees.

It is not an infringement of the churches right to refrain from that imposition on non-pastoral employees, as the courts of 28 states have determined

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

It's not my fault there are no jobs. I didn't vote for Obama. I knew he was completely over his head and didn't knew what to do. Maybe they can go work for Solyndra or another solar manufacturer since green energy is the way of the future. Oh darn, that's right shale gas is 1/5 of the price and nobody wants to pay for it. Well, you will right?

You are pushing your agenda on the Catholics. They know its wrong and the public knows its wrong. It's the Catholic schools and hospitals that succeed when your union infested organizations are cesspools of corruption and incompetence.

These are religious organizations and eveybody who works there and uses the facilities knows it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

First, congratulations on conflating and distorting issues, as is you proclivity. I don't care who you accuse of creating a job shortage; it still exists and therefore makes your assertion that people have an unencumbered choice of where to work utterly absurd.

Second, 98% of catholic women use contraception: nobody is imposing any agenda on them. In fact, nobody is shoving a pill down anyone's throat, not even the 2% of catholic women you stick exclusively to the rhythm method.

The hospitals are not churches. They are not religious organizations. They are simply owned by a religious organization. That's a big difference, and the courts have all said so.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

How's that Solyndra deal working for you. According to Keynes, we should be flying high right now.Where is the growth you promised. Oh my gosh, Obama just thought he could order the businesses to produce and they would listen to him.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So now its up to the Catholics to adhere to your goose steeping HHS thugs as to what to provide employees. You got what you wanted now you have to shove your liberal ideology down other throats. Take care of your own people.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

All people are "my" own people. And all people have the right to choose whether or not to use birth control guaranteed them by law, regardless of what their employer thinks, or tries to shove down THEIR throats.

[-] 3 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

GLENN GREENWALD PARTS WAYS WITH ZINN AND CHOMSKY: THERE ARE COSTS TO VOTING FOR "THE LESSER EVIL" by Terri Lee on Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 1:45pm Civil liberties under Obama - Glenn Greenwald SOCIALISM CONFERENCE -- SUNDAY -- JULY 3, 2011 - CHICAGO

AT 1:00:00 : http://wearemany.org/v/2011/07/civil-liberties-under-obama

GREENWALD: You know there's abeen lots of people who make radical critiques of hte government who -- like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and others -- who have said 'as horrible as the Democrats are the fact that they are even a little bit better than the Republicans means that it's important that they win and not Republicans because with an entity as powerful as the United States governmetn even small differences can make meaningful differences in the lives of millions of people.'

And so even though there's tiny little differences between Democrats and Republicans -- and they're both evil and corrupt in their own ways -- that it's important to continue to elect Democrats, they've argued.

That to me was an argument that was somewhat persuasive -- for awhile.

And what I've actually decided and concluded instead was that even if there are short-term benefits to electing Democrats -- as opposed to Republicans -- so you get a Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court instead of an Antonio Scalia, for example -- something like that.

That's a benefit that'll sway some case and it's bettr [inaudible]....um, there's also experent costs to pledging your loyalty to a political party and to contine to support it even though it's in this extremely corrupt and destructive expression.

And so it's not just the benefit that needs to be weighed, it's the cost as well, knowing -- as party leaders do -- that many liberals are convinced (and that many people on the left are convniced) by this reasoning [the Democrats] can continue to ignore people on the left, because they know that at the end of the day they'll scare enough of them to with scary images of Michele Bachman or Newt Gingrich or whomever...they'll continue to support [the Democrats] even though they're ignored adn they get nothing.

And they'll be ignored and get nothing forever.

That's a huge cost.

Another cost is the opportunity cost of doing activism for a political party that doesn't care at all about you.

Instead of using your money and time on more meaningful changes.

[APPLAUSE]

So that, I think, is the ultimate formula that needs to be evaluated. The ultimate weighing of costs and benefits that needs to be assessed -- not just 'well, there are some beneifts to the Democrats, therefore let's vote for them."

[Ask, too] what are the costs from continuing to support and prop up this party and having them know that they can take the support for granted and putting our time and energy into that rather that something more significant that can achieve something more enduring and more fundamental with longer-lasting benefits.

And so that's the calculation that, to me, has swayed me away from that view [of Zinn and Chomsky].


AT 1:00:00 : http://wearemany.org/v/2011/07/civil-liberties-under-obama

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Worked real well in '69. Nixon was such a bonus. Four more years of the torture of Vietnam was really great. We really showed THEM pressure and held them to account, didn't we?

Ask Tom Hayden what he thinks now. He liked Chomsky, too. This is what he wrote in the early '60s: "subjective apathy is encouraged by the objective American situation — the actual structural separation of people from power, from relevant knowledge, from pinnacles of decision making. . . . The American political system is not the democratic model of which its glorifiers speak. In actuality it frustrates democracy by confusing the individual citizen, paralyzing policy discussion, and consolidating the irresponsible power of military and business interests."

Sound familiar?

We've been down this road before. Yours is NOT the first generation of activists to think about these things. And Hayden at least realizes he made a terrible error in abandoning the vote in '69. We are poised to make the same mistake again. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It's an old saying, but as true today as the day it was first uttered.

[-] 2 points by eruditeogre (7) from Ithaca, NY 2 years ago

We're not the first to think of this. That is the problem; no movement in the past has truly taken direct democracy to the point where it undermines and changes the system. You let fear rule your political existence. Perhaps you should try bravery for once.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Bravery will not avoid the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Ignoring that is not activism, it is delusion.

Let me try this one more time: if you wish to work to create a new system, go for it. But it will NOT happen anytime soon, if at all. In the meantime, there is a reality that is in place RIGHT NOW. That reality has an impact of everyone AT THIS MOMENT. Taking five minutes to vote does not conflict with activist dreams or goals.

IT IS NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION!!!! THAT IS A FALSE CHOICE!!!!!

Vote AND occupy.

Among the moral and intellectual touchstones cited by many here is Noam Chomsky, and for good reason. Few make as articulate and humane a case for anacho-syndicatism as he does. And yet the very people who sing his praises ignore his direct advice to the Occupy movement: go for reform, not revolution. And reform cannot happen with a court that blocks it.

Well, I'm not saying go only for reform. I say GO FOR BOTH.

[-] 5 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

(The system won't let me respond to your reply to me below TerriLee because someone deleted a post I think, so I'll do so here. )

I have read the entire thread and I will be voting for Rocky Anderson of the Justice party.

If you don't vote, there is no distinguishing rebellion from apathy. If you vote for a third party candidate, that sends a message of dissatisfaction and refusal to participate in the two-party duopoly. A strong showing by a third party may help pull the major parties in the right direction.

Voting for a third party or independent candidate lets the candidate know that there are people who support him or her. It can also help third parties get party status in states which my help them qualify for some public funding.

These are all good things. I can't see why non-voting is better in any way.

[-] 1 points by eruditeogre (7) from Ithaca, NY 2 years ago

Because non voting does not equal sitting in front of the TV watching sports. Non-voting means getting of your ass and directly challenging the system. It's so sad to see people making this assertion; no, strike that, it is OFFENSIVE to those who are trying to do more than play into the hands of the rigged system and accept the mouldering crumbs they are given for their participation.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

You can also vote and get off your ass and directly challenge the system. You don't have to choose one or the other.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Boycotting is not a call to quietly sit home and refrain from voting. It is a call for a noisey, loud, organized, communal act of defiance and resistance.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yes, we need to make a lot of noise and I have no fantasy about a third party win. Nonetheless, you haven't read made a case that not voting is better than voting third party. What, if anything, would be the advantage?

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Excellent question. As I see it, Voting Third Party --- a popular and common way for people to express their distaing for The Establishment and 'vote their conscious' is a bit of a 'feel good' vote in that, you 'feel good' voting in accordance with your values -- which you cannot do if you pull the lever for a D or an R.

However, as we all know, voting third party does NOT truly advance the agenda of that party. The voter is expressing what he or she desires in terms of policy and platform -- but, in reality -- it achieves nothing.

The Boycott is saying, "We reject the entire electoral sham!" It is a public declaration of the rejection of the system (which many third party voters are trying to express with their independent vote--- but the system doesn't /can't -- is not designed -- to acknowledge.)

Here's a strategic idea hhat I really like: I think it would be very strong and potent if OWS officially called for a Boycott of the Presidential Elections. And, not to stop there, if all the third parties not only joined in the call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Elections but also refused to run a Prez candidate ---- or, if one campaigns -- let part of the campaign platform to be to call for the Boycott. As this is occuring with a unified and broad call for the 2012 prez election boycott, the third parties can grow and expand their base and get their message out.

A third party candidate win is completely impossible -- -so, surrender to that reality.

Instead, let's massively call for the boycott, make some noise, reject the system, all while building third parties around their causes and platforms.

What do you think?

[-] 2 points by jarmstrong (3) 2 years ago

Tactically, I disagree that third parties should refuse to run candidates. They should be properly registered as candidates before withdrawing, to add weight to the boycott and to be positioned to resume their campaign in the unlikely event that the state conceded to the OWS demands.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I disagree that voting third party doesn't advance the agenda of that party. The very existence of a third party candidate put issues on the table which are not being addressed by the two major parties.

A strong showing by a third party candidate scares the duopoly. Why else have they gone to such lengths to exclude and demonize them? I think the duopoly would be thrilled to see an election boycott.

Supporting a third party is a statement of rejection of the duopoly, but it is more than that. It is affirmative support for the issues addressed by that candidate. I would say this is particularly true when the candidate is someone who has left one of the major parties like Rocky Anderson, a lifelong democrat until last summer. A third party win won't happen this time, but it can happen.

[-] 1 points by eruditeogre (7) from Ithaca, NY 2 years ago

Please point to a national issue that voting for a third party has altered. Seriously, please. I would really like to know where this direct impact has occurred, because I have yet to see it. People make these assertions without backing them up all the time. I want to know when third-party voting (which I have done in five presidential elections) has shifted the national debate substantively.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, child labor laws, 40 hour work week, minimum wage, Fair Labor Standards Act, prohibition, graduated income tax, direct election of US senators,

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_thirdparties.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804188.html

http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/third-parties-the-avant-garde-of-change-36738/

[-] -2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Why the Third Party Thing doesn't work!

Even the most optimistic third-party dreamers acknowledge the near absolute impossibility of any candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat winning an outright majority of electoral votes. What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states—5? 10?—to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/03/drop-the-fantasy-of-a-third-party-candidate-winning-in-2012.html

[-] 5 points by gcaorg (19) 2 years ago

Then you have a 2-party dictatorship and no democracy. The US-American people should work hard that the third party thing works.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Impossible. No amount of hard work -- under the current system -- will do it.

[-] 1 points by gcaorg (19) 2 years ago

Is that legal? USA is forced to live under a 2-party dictatorship, this is no democracy. Anyway it is possible to change that electoral rules, wiith your outdated occupying strategy of course not.

[-] 5 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

"We did not vote ourselves into this mess, and we can't vote our way out of it." - Adolph Reed Jr.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” -Albert Camus

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

To boycott voting is colossally stupid.

To the extent that we didn't vote ourselves into this mess, that is partially correct. Evidenced by low voter turnout. Low voter participation is part of the problem, not a solution. We can vote our way out of it. By increasing voter participation.

If OWS wanted to do something constructive it would organize voter registration and get out the vote drives. Inform and educate people about the damaging effects of Citizens United and money in politics. And urge voters to seek out and vote for candidates that will work for campaign finance reform and that include it in their campaign platform.

And then supporters of such candidates should demand a pledge that the candidate would actively work for campaign reform as a number one priority.

[-] 0 points by bob194 (1) 2 years ago

"And then supporters of such candidates should demand a pledge that the candidate would actively work for campaign reform as a number one priority."

This would be akin to demanding that Los Zetas pledge never ever to export cocaine to the U.S. again. April, if you believe that "we can vote ourselves out of it," how about adducing some evidence to support that position?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Acts of nonsensical defiance are most often associated with 3 year olds.

There's no reason to think we can't solve our problems by working with and through government. We've overcome problems worse than this. All by working with government. Not acting out in defiance of it, like 3 year olds. We have the power to fix our problems. With awareness, participation and the concerted will power to do so. Less participation is not a solution. You want to have a defeatest, defiant attitude and act like a 3 year old, go ahead. Good luck with that.

The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" has worked for Grover Norquist. There's no reason we can't take a page from his playbook.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I was asked to post something similar. How much did you get for that post, just so I know what the going rate is?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wrong move for good sentiment.

To abstain from voting does nothing. Protest at voting sites the non-representation of the people, forward thought and consideration. Vote for the least objectionable, the least obvious corrupt/greedy choice. Continue to protest for change and the end of corruption. But to pull out of our legal process is to hand it over to those who are systematically plowing us under.

We may not have a real candidate in this election. But to abstain from the process does not help our cause. We need to get more people involved in the process of government not less. Get the major portion of the population active. Lead them to proactive involvement. Develop unity in addressing change and confronting corruption and manipulation. This is how we win. Not by walking away and saying unfair.

Now and between elections is when we should be most active in pushing for things that will return government to us.

1) Campaign Finance reform - get money out of politics.

2) Corporate person hood - fallacy and invitation to manipulate : END IT.

3) Conflict of interest in government - Ownership of stocks and property being affected by proposed legislation.

4) Ear marking funds for projects that affect - Ownership of stocks and property by members of government.

5) No line item veto to use to clean Bills that are passed - Not having veto power on singular items attached as riders on a bill allows corruption of a bill and an end run on the legal process to pass items that would not pass on their own merit and on things which the American voter would not support.

These are some of the Dogs in our fight.

Abstaining or opting out of the process does not help us.

Uniting in common cause does help us.

Get active be proactive. Recruit the general population to partake in the process in positive fashion.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

There is no way to be a radical in the voting booth. There is no way to 'protest' at the ballot box. The electoral system of oppression gives the illusion of choice -- but it is false. It is theater.

So long as citizens stay within the confines of the electoral system that the State has created -----there is no way to truly 'express your desires'.

If we reject 'the system' --- then let's reject it full and completely.

OWS's strength and power is to apply pressure from outside the political arena: this includes voting.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

To reject the current system that is in place is to go completely rogue. To affect any meaning from boycotting the process you would have to deny the right of the newly elected to hold office. You would have to ignore Government and established law and actively work against it while standing outside the law and our given protections under the law. You are suggesting violent revolution.

That I can not and will not support. Show the world and the population of the USA that those in power are wrong, but do it legally.

Drum up support to take back government by our given legal process. Recall/Fire those who are unwilling to do their Legal duty in supporting the people.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

OWS's strength is not diminished IN THE LEAST by voting. It can apply pressure AND prevent a fascist Supreme Court. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Direct democracy will NOT take over this country before new LIFETIME court appointments are made. It will likely not do so in your life or the lives of your children. But no one is telling you to stop pressing for it, actively and loudly. However, abdicating your vote that would ensure a better court is utterly self-defeating. It is also completely selfish. It undermines the well being of everyone else who would have to live with the consequences of a locked-up far right wing court. And it would do so simply because so many progressives and activists determined it wasn't radical enough for them to spend two seconds to pull a lever. It just goes to show that ego and hubris are not the exclusive domain of the 1%.

[-] 4 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I would say to stop waiting on the best solution and work toward the better solution. Then let people wrestle their voting demons in the booth. That would be the better approach.

[-] 4 points by ClearView (74) 2 years ago

This would change nothing and would make it easier for the status quo to manipulate the electorate system

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The Status Quo has created an electoral system of manipulation that it wants you to partake in. It will do what you want, with you or without you.

Boycotting is a very very low-risk, low-calorie, direct action.

You really have nothing to lose, becasue when it comes to Presidential election extravaganzas, your vote doesn't matter anyhow.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Electoral vote.

This "is" an area of legitimate concern.

I have absolutely no problem in assigning more representatives to represent larger and growing populations so that the peoples voice can be heard better.

I do have a problem with the electoral vote, because it does not represent the will of the people in conferring due credit to each individuals vote. Electoral representation in the voting process is manipulation.

[-] 2 points by ClearView (74) 2 years ago

Better to go and write in Elmer Fudd as your candidate than not participating at all.

[-] -2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Prove it.

[-] 3 points by gcaorg (19) 2 years ago

Very bad idea. That means to kick yourself out of democracy. If you are not happy with your government it is your obligation to vote it off at your next chance.

[-] 2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

OWS wisely calls for a Direct Democracy and operates via this method. This is smart. The electoral system is no 'democracy' it is a 'big media, big money, narrow spectrum, corporate crafted, candidate centered, quadrennial extravagana' [CHOMSKY]. Therefore, don't partake in this sham system and all it stands for. Reject it and refuse participation. There is no democracy to be found there.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

"It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Chomsky advises reform, not revolution. That's what he said to OWS. Funny you quote him about one thing and not the other.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

He says a lot of things and I most certainly don't agree with him on all of it!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Only when it's convenient for propping up your what you want it to apparently. And all or nothing is certainly more romantic than incremental improvement, or simply preventing harm, or acting responsibly. Your right to protest and do nothing else except protest, your need to see yourself as an uncompromised revolutionary warrior, trumps doing anything to prevent the greater harm to your fellow citizens. Voting is so passe, isn't it?

OWS calls for a direct democracy. (At least one faction of it goes; it is by no means a universal in the movement.) That will not be the law of the land before November, let alone the four years following November, and not the 20 after that. Until it becomes a reality, the system we have will remain in place and IMPACT everyone. The laws that are put in place will effect you, me and everyone else. But that doesn't matter to you. What's more important is that you appear to yourself to be the only true radical revolutionary, and fuck the consequences to everyone else. It's pure ego, and nothing else.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore

OR

Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?


If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and that President Gore would invade Iraq, or NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind


If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy


[-] 3 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Obama is as right wing as any of them. The best Republican that Democrat money could buy. The Left has been played

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Is that why he has been slimed by the Rs,
Is that why he did what shrub did not - osama
Is that why he did what shrub did not - out of Iraq
Is that why he did what shrub did not - "Obamacare"
Is that why he did what shrub did not - saved GM
Is that why he did what shrub did not - killed more terrorists
Is that why he did what shrub did not - lilly ledbetter
If you have the courage - or the brains - can you tell SPECIFICALLY me how you compare:
scalia & thomas
Kagan & Sotomayor

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

you really believe were out of iraq

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

good point - no do you admire scalia & thomas?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i neither admire or hate anyone on the supreme court they are there to be a balance. In a case like that we must have the extremes so we can have better out comes on stuff otherwise the court may become to left or to right as some would put it. the extremes balance out and let people have new thoughts

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I did not ask if you hated anyone

I asked if you ADMIRED scalia + thomas

Again - I ask - do you ADMIRE scalia + thomas?

do you ADMIRE their bush v Gore & Citizens United decisions?

Do remember that in bush v Gore, they ruled that their bizzare decision specifically cound not be used for future rulings
Do you remember alito, during the SOTU lied about Obama's warning about CU?

and only half of the people in Auschwitz should burn?
balance is not always best
EVERYTHING is not gray SOME THINGS are black and white

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

"i neither admire" first three words of my comment

stop being a negative Nancy

not everything is grey your right, but also not everything is black and white. all view points should be viewed otherwise we may have a closed opinion on things and we cant have that. you don't have to agree with someones opinion but you should respect it to show better class

[-] 1 points by eruditeogre (7) from Ithaca, NY 2 years ago

It's true, he has extended the American legacy of slaughter and mayhem even more than Bush did.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I think you need to look further into all of those points you listed [I assume] in favor of Obama. In my book those are examples against Obama.

[-] 3 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Excellent suggestion but let's go one step further. Let's hold our own online election parallel to the legitimate one. Let's promote the election beginning now and garner numbers that will embarrass the status quo.

[-] 0 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

That is like a cheerlead throwing up pompoms after the game is over!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Not to be rude, but that's stupid. Voting 3rd party would be a much better approach. They would love for people with minds like ours to not vote. Then they only have the sheeple to worry about.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Voting third party does nothing but split the progressive vote and hand victory to some of the darkest forces in the universe: Gingrich or Romney. They would appoint more corporate backing, women hating, civil rights trashing Supreme Court members, who would lock in proto-fascism for the rest of our lives.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I would argue that voting for a corporatist like Obama splits the progressive vote, and wastes votes that could go to a true progressive candidate.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

What true progressive candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this upcoming election? Absent that, voting a candidate guaranteed to lose, something only the progressives are considering, makes the right wing block more powerful. When one side splits their vote and the other doesn't, who do you think always wins?

Voting against Obama (which is what voting third party is in effect) helps ensure that a Republitard will gain the office of the presidency. By doing that an overwhelmingly right wing Supreme court is guaranteed. And say bye-bye to any progress you hope you can achieve in the foreseeable future.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The only reason a true progressive candidate has little chance of winning is because so many progressives won't vote for him because they don't think he has any chance of winning. Do you see the catch 22?

I could just as easily say that by voting for Obama, you are voting against Rocky Anderson which helps ensure a republican win.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

So your not voting for Obama will magically change that dynamic? I'm talking about the reality that exists today, not theory. If there was pie in the sky, we'd have blueberry clouds.

REALISTICALLY , there are currently only two viable parties right now. It doesn't matter why. In real terms, not ideological ones, voting for a third party candidate splits the vote. Do you think the Republitards will split THEIR vote? If Romney gets the nomination, do you really believe they will write in Santorum in large numbers and hurt their chances of gaining the White House? Since they won't, we can't.

If you want a viable third party, work to make one. Make sure it has enough support to actually win. That won't happen in time for this next election, but it is a possibility for the following one. And starting Local is more effective than going national. With enough third party congressmen and senators in the mix, a real support system for national elections can be established. The problem with ideologues is that they too often insist on all or nothing. What they wind up with is the nothing, and ensure that's what the rest of us are left with, too.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'm getting tired of that response from people. I hear that response and people blame Nader for Al Gore losing. But if what you're saying is so true... How did Clinton win 2 terms? How did Barack Obama win? Exactly. What you're suggesting basically means that only the 2 parties should be allowed to run for office and that third parties should be abolished. That's dumb. Sorry to be rude, but it is. If every democrat was wise enough, we'd have a 3rd party president in 2012. Most people I know even admit they will only be voting for Obama this time because they don't want a republican to win, not because they think he is amazing. So if every person who planned on doing that voted third party, we could have a 3rd party president.

It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Only instead of battle, it's just voting and protesting.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

"Most people I know even admit they will only be voting for Obama this time because they don't want a republican to win, not because they think he is amazing.So if every person who planned on doing that voted third party, we could have a 3rd party president."

Exactly!

"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

Amen. More people need to get enough self-respect to say 'Hell no, I will not vote for someone who sells me out and trashes the constitution."

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Your dying on your feet will bring everyone else to their knees, and that's the problem.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What you're suggesting is to continually vote in favor of a system that creates the problems.

The two party system's tactic: Divide and conquer.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yeah, and Nixon was a peach.

I never said don't start a third party. In fact, I would enthusiastically support such an effort. I said that voting for an unwinnable third party candidate in THIS election was handing victory to the reactionary right.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

You actually think that our vote counts? After decades of proof on how it's fixed? It doesn't. The sheeple are the people who vote thinking their vote counts - they, like sheep, buy into the system that their vote matters and that if they pour all of their energy into electoral activism instead of into real activism then that will make a difference. But it never ever has and it never ever will. Though well-intentioned, those voting for third party candidates have been duped. It's a waste of energy.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I've seen Ernie Chambers get elected in my city. Voting works. It just takes a whole lot of people to wise up and get together to support a cause. Go on thinking your vote doesn't matter. I've seen it take effect in my city. But you are right about one thing, voting alone is not good enough. You have to gather your friends, your family, and your neighbors in support of a good cause.

When it comes to a national scale, it takes an even bigger movement. But going on not voting or following the lesser of 2 evils fallacy is a losing battle.

I'd rather see my third party vote lose than vote against my morals and support wars that kill people.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

First of all, I am talking more about national politics than local. You know, where the money is and where there is real influence. More importantly, the entire system of government is broken. It's not Direct Democracy the way it should be. And specifically the electoral system is broken. No one has ever become President of the US, or a Senator for that matter, that didn't demonstrate allegiance to the powers that be. There has been a lot written about how real social movements have been successfully co-opted by being redirected from real activism into electoral activism - which is to say the energy and power of real movements for change was redirected into voting which was false activism and ended up in a dead-end. Look at what happened in Madison last year. The people really had power until they were convinced that redirecting that energy into the same ol' electoral action would be the same. What happened? They went out and started campaigning for Democrats! So, a Democrat one? Or even a third party candidate. What did that do for them? Nothing. The system won. The system stayed the same. And they all went home with the false sense of 'winning'. They had power when they were bucking the sytem, but when it got redirected into partisan politics, they lost.

OWS at it's roots is about changing the system. Not trying to find 'heroes' to rely upon to get it done within the system. That's the cult of personality. And it has NEVER worked. We want a REAL democracy. Not an hierarchy.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What about congressmen like Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and Bernie Sanders?

What are you suggesting? Not to vote? Over throw the system? I want part in neither. Sometimes it's easier to fix something instead of building a new one.

What do you think would happen if everyone in congress were like Dennis, Bernie, and Alan? Hmmm... think about that. We've never had a congress like that before. What if we did?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It's not a matter of easy or difficult. It may be very difficult to fix things. But the right thing to do is to fix the system. Only those that would end our system of government would disagree.

The solution is more voter participation, not less. Like you said, more people like Kucinich and Sanders.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I used to think that Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders were great because of what they said. But, then many people on the left started pointing out their actual votes. It is very nuanced, but look carefully. Bernie, for one takes a lot of money from AIPAC and votes with the Democrats almost always. Both he and Dennis talk a good game but on votes that matter to the establishment they acquiesce. On votes that don't matter it's okay for them to vote against the establishment because it makes them look good and serves to pull in those further to the left. It serves to convince us that there is hope in working hard within the electoral system to get guys like that elected. Believe me, it was disappointing to start realizing that these guys weren't at all who I thought they were. They are allowed to grandstand and make those great speeches because it serves the purpose of keeping more of us subdued. As long as they don't actually try to effect any change that Empire does not want. Witness Kucinich's vote on the Healthcare reform to name one of many. For all that talk, he voted for Obamacare which was the biggest handout to insurance companies ever - and he knew damned well that it was.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I've studied up on Dennis. He is a good man. Look up the NEED act, HR 2990, and try and tell me otherwise.

His voting history is really good actually, in my honest opinion, Dennis truly works for the people.

http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Voted against the misnamed “Patriot Act”. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)

Rated 64% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)

Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)

Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)

Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)

Give domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees. (May 2009)

Honor the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. (Jan 2009)

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

All EASY votes -- and, that's what he's there for. To 'vote left' and give the illusion to voters like you that he's there 'for the left'.

Ask, instead, not how he voted but what legislation has he actually passed.

Kucinich and Sanders are not there TO actuallly advance any agenda or make real policy changes --they are there to quell left dissent.

To trick and fool 'the left' into thinking there are few groovy one's in there. I see this political strategy is working nicely.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

His voting history was EASYYYYYYYYYY.

It was easy for him to vote 'left' on issues as there was much opposition on these 'safe' votes he cast.

When it really counted --- on healthcare --- he caved. THAT vote mattered and he jumped in Obama's lap.

Sanders and Kucinich exist to quell left dissent to make the voting public think that 'there are a few good ones in there fighting for us' -- and there are not. And the entire system is corrupt and a sham.

Now, please, let us return to the discussion of Prz Boycott of 2012.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yeah Dennis is also a guy who wants to end the power of the federal reserve and created HR 2990 to do so.... He also voted against the patriot act. He speaks out against Obama for what was done against Libya and calls it unconstitutional acts of aggressive war... he also voted NO on the TARP bailouts.... yet you say he only supports leftist ideals and always backs the president just to make it look like... you're to deep into conspiracies? You are wrong about Kucinich is basically my point.

Dennis supports universal healthcare and talks about it all the time, of course he's going to vote in favor of anything providing more coverage to people.

I've done my research on Dennis Kucinich. He is the best man in congress right now. You do not know what you're talking about.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

It does a helluva lot more than not voting at all.

[-] -2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Not so. Kindly read through the entire thread.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6811) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

But here’s the deal no matter how bad the dems are they’re ten times better than the GOP and the fact is somebody is going to win every election and then that person is going to influence public policy. I voted for Anderson in 1980, in part because I felt we needed a third way, and in so doing voted against one of the most moral Presidents we have ever had, (Look at his post-presidency) because I fell into that “they’re all the same” trap. When my son was getting his political science degree we spent a good deal of time looking at docs and papers to see how a third party could come into play, and the thing is, without a convention I just don’t see how you do it, and I wouldn’t trust that; even if they let me in the room, I don’t trust myself enough for that let alone them. I urge everyone to get out their microscopes and find a difference because I think this election matters. If I’m a fool for believing in democracy, I can think of worst things to be a fool for.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Welcome to the forum. I think that people should boycott YOU.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Agree. Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Bypass Congress and vote against the corporations, and special interests by withholding your dollars from being exchanged for their products.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Looks to me as though the (R)epelican'ts are getting a little scared.

Less voting has been their plan for a while now.

[-] 1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I used to think like that too. I "knew" that the Republican's strategy was to get less people to vote because they would win and since I wanted a Dem to win then I must make sure to get people educated and registered and voting - Dem. Well, now I realize that was propaganda that the Dem party was pushing and that in reality the Dems are the same as the Repubs, and the system is so controlled that no third party candidate will ever win in any meaningful way. And more importantly, the entire system is corrupt. We have an hierarchy government which means we transfer all of our power to a very few who are then easily persuaded or corrupted into transferring all of OUR wealth and desires into the hands of an even smaller few. It's a game. Pure and simple. Your vote doesn't count but they want to support the illusion that it does so that people will be subdued from getting together and fighting for real change. So, if enough people keep going along with the idea that their vote does count, and they can continue to show that on the evening news so that others might continue to believe that it does, then we play right into their hands. Here's the secret: the Republicans [or at least the Republican voters] aren't your enemy. Ever hear of divide and conquer?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And how many voter supression laws have the Dems passed ?
And how many voter id laws have the Dems passed ?
And how many early voting periods have been cut back by the Dems ?
And how many zombies were reported to have voted in SC by an Rs ?

South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles director Kevin Shwedo testified before a House hearing that more than 950 dead people had voted.
NOTHING was ever proven - not 1 out of 950


There is no documented trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time.


If you seriously believe this fraud is equal on both sides, please find the statistics on voter fraud or voter supression and show them here.

[-] 1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I am not sure what your point is. It seems you are replying to my comment, but if you are then I am not sure what it would matter which party does it more. That was my point. Dems and Repubs do the same things once they are in office. At the highest level of govt. no one gets in that Empire doesn't want in.

In addition, there is a game going on that involves getting us all to choose sides as you [and many of us] are doing. That keeps us divided from ever rising up together and overthrowing the entire system and the power structure. OWS has done well to avoid the trap of picking a political party to align with.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I am trying to point out - as politely as possible - my STRONG disagreement with the idea that all pols are the same.
I am NOT a big fan of Obama.
I am a big fan of America,
Simple question-
if you just jumped off of the sinking Titanic,
would you choose to cling the wood deck chair or would you choose to cling the metal table?


FROM epa1ntr: Most likely two SC judges will retire during the next term. One party is SURE to appoint another Scalia, Thomas Alito or Roberts. The other party would just as surely appoint a Kagan, Ginsburgh, Sotamayor. Do you really think one side will uphold Roe v Wade when it will come up? Do you think one side won't uphold Citizens United if it comes up again? The voting records are very clear on these issues, and they fall clearly along old fashioned party lines.


THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

By clinging to the small differences we stay trapped in the same cycle. They are not meaningful differences. For the most part, they both end up effecting the same exact larger policies. In fact, I would say Obama, because he is a Democrat, is more effective evil [as opposed to 'the lesser evil'] because people believe that he is really on their side and intends to uphold his promises simply because he is a Democrat. At best he throws Democrats a bone every once in a while that is less important to the Empire [something that doesn't have to do with money - like appointing a slightly Democratic leaning judge] just to keep them on board. And that's the game.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What about some of the differences that are rather large, like support for labor, and programs that aid the less fortunate?

[-] 1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I am sure you are aware that most of Labor [with a few exceptions] is a Democratic voting machine. The Union leadership [as opposed to the members] regularly screw the members over and redirect money and union members' energy into voting [Democrat of course] - which is just more evidence that voting is a scam. Getting the Union members to spend their time "getting out the vote" and handing money over to the Democratic candidate of the Union Leaderships' choice keeps union members from spending time being active. Look at all the union members who showed up for some of the early OWS protests. In most cases the leadership was not on board. They didn't want the unions participating. But, when they went anyway, some of the leadership talked with the other Democratic operatives and decided maybe they could co-opt OWS and use it to redirect the energy back into the electoral process for Democrats. Just like what happened in Madison, WI.

And it is under Obama that we have lost more of our civil liberties and social programs than under 8 years of Bush.

These things are important to Empire. Money and Power. And as long as everyone is believing that the Emperor has new clothes and buying into this idea that "voting works" then they have the power to steal our money.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I didn't get screwed by my union.

What are you talking about?

(R)epelican'ts spend a lot of time money and effort to slander all kinds of unions. It kind of felt like you were doing that too.

Why do you slander unions?

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Meanwhile, this is all moot because your vote doesn't count. Who wins [in a 2 man race in which the only 2 choices weren't chosen by you either] isn't really up to you. This forum is about boycotting the vote. What do you think of that?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I don't just think like that, I've heard them say it, just about exactly like that. Pus there's that whole voter disenfranchisement thing they have going on.

I see you're new here Or are you? If not new. Who were you?

You're kinda wordy for a new comer. Could you boil that down to a couple of sentences?

[-] -1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Less voting is an interesting approach. I wounder if they are going to explore that more widely?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Which "they" are you speaking of?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Seems the RNC and the DNC have now joined forces.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Yes. Therefore, reject the system. #OWS supports Direct Democracy -- and our system of electoral oppression is most certainly not Direct Democracy. Therefore, let's reject it.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That is EXACTLY what we did in 1969. We didn't get a new system. We got Nixon, and 4 more years of war.

You may or may not get direct democracy in your lifetime, let alone between now and November. In the meantime the Supreme court will still be functioning, making decisions that will effect you and me and everyone else fro many years to come. And with 2 Judges likely to step down and be replaced, it is a real concern. Do you really want Roe v Wade overturned? Do you think that direct democracy will rule before the need to return to back alley abortions? Whatever your beliefs are about the kinds of changes we need, these are real dangers NOW, ignored at one's own peril.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture officially endorses the call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election!

http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/boycott-the-2012-presidential-election/#comment-635

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

Most people who choose not to vote are those who don't like how the system operates. They think that by not voting they are making a statement of their disapproval, but they are instead simply allowing the opposition to gain power without opposition.

Thedreamers.org are sponsoring a fictional character for Vice President of the United States as a write-in candidate. That way people can still vote for who they want as President, but a vote for the fictional character is a vote for the policies they support, which I think most people here would agree with. It would force the media to acknowledge how many people support dramatic changes to the system.

A vote not cast for the lessor of two evils empowers a vote for the greater of two evils. Until we can change the election system we need to use it to lessen the damage as much as possible.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and oppress them." -Karl Marx

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv71d6eoW41qiqjr3o1_500.png

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

There has been an 1600% increase in interest-group-sponsored TV ads in this presidential election cycle as compared to the 2008 primaries.

-The Weslyan Media Project

http://​mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/​01/30/​group-involvement-skyrockets/

[-] 1 points by jarmstrong (3) 2 years ago

An organized election boycott is the only possible way to achieve concrete gains and keep the movement going. It is not about making a statement, but is instead the political equivalent of a general strike. Very specific demands must be issued and if they are not met, the people must act to delegitimize the electoral farce we have seen to date, in which Obama runs unopposed and the most popular candidate from the other party is systematically marginalized and excluded by the corporate media because he advocates ending imperialism and the police state, as do a large majority of Americans. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's Republican rivals rise and fall at the whim of their investors in superpacs. There should be broad discussion about what these specific demands should be, but I have a few ideas: 1. All candidates on the ballot of a majority of states must be included in the first nationally-televised debate. Continued participation might be limited in future to those receiving 5% or more in any national poll between the first and second debate. 2. All candidates who refuse to accept superpac funds will share between them an equal amount in public funds for their campaigns. This would neutralize the effects of Citizens United. 3. A commission on Democracy and Civil Liberties will be established including representatives of all political parties and the major international and nation human rights organizations to thoroughly examine our judicial, electoral, penal, and police systems with recommendations for reforms in compliance with international human rights standards initially propagated by the United States and since used to hypocritically justify the worst war crimes since the Nazis. Start from the position of boycott and force the 1% to make concessions that would allow us to develop an independent party. The whole world will support us, and if we can keep turnout below 50%, there will be a strong basis to demand new elections and real structural change. If we should happen to achieve our demands, that will further the movement, too. So it's a win-win proposition.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

If voting changed anything it would be illegal.

The terrible system works because they give you the candidate that will do 110% of what they want,. and then they offer the crazy nutter who they never expect to win,. but if he does even better.

People keep talking about the "system we have" but we know this 'system' is utterly corrupted. Why continue under that terrible system? Voting is only you lending support to the oppression of the 1%. You give them validity because you participate like sheep called to slaughter.

Recognize that this broken system does not work for the 99% and only works to keep the 1% in control.

"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers, or backgammon, a playing with right and wrong; its obligation never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right thing is doing nothing for it. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority." -Thoreau

[-] 1 points by nightwindrc (13) 2 years ago

Boycotting is not the answer here. OWS should gather around a few core ideas and push its own candidate for the office. Until OWS has a concrete set of goals and an agenda, much like the tea party did, it will not be an agent of true change. There are too many differing ideologies here. Not that its a bad thing, but it has no message for politicians to rally around like the tea party did. Does the movement want higher taxes on corporations or lower taxes for them? Is it for or against the health care reform law? Fossil fuels or "green" energy? It needs some kind of ... focus.

I know this small post doesn't encompass every discussion we have on this site. I just do not think people know what this movement is about other than wall street.

[-] 1 points by antiglobb (47) 2 years ago

Splendid idea! Don't go to vote. The elections legitimate all the parties. They say: " I've obtained your vote, so I've acquired the right to make laws for my interests and you've just to obey. This decision will create the chaos in the Congress and they will be obliged to respect your opinion.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by saboro (12) 2 years ago

Voting is the solution, not the problem. Why would anyone want to boycott the solution? I understand that the organization and communication with an apathetic public is hard, but cheap street stunts and boycotts of voting are counterproductive and a sign of defeat.

The problem with boycotts is that there is nothing to boycott... The money-printing machine assures that the big banks together with the government will take your money weather you give it to them or not. You can't even vote with your wallet, legal counterfeit makes that impossible.

All that remains is organization, education and the ballot box. Nothing else.

votersway.com

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Not so. Your vote doesn't count. There has been countless testimony and proof of all kinds that it doesn't count. Voting has never been a solution. The only thing that has ever worked is real direct activism. Voting is a trap to quell the masses' discontent.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So Terri, did you also put together a team to push this concept at places like, Heritage, CATO, Crossroads, Mackinaw, FLAKESnews and other such sites?

For this concept to send an effective message, that will have to be pushed even harder at those places.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

If 90 percent of the "electorate" disagrees with the way congress is doing their job, do you really think they care about your vote?

Who was it that said "If elections changed anything, they would be illegal." ??

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yes, they would care about our votes if they were deprived of them. Unfortunately, most people keep voting for candidates they don't really support because they are stuck in the Democrat-Republican mindset. If those votes started going to better candidates, you bet they would care. When you keep voting for them, you keep rewarding them for doing a bad job.

[-] 1 points by judy (61) 2 years ago

IMO We need more like-minded people to participate, not less. Instead of a boycott, we could try to reform the voting system. One way would be with Instant Run Off Voting (Ranked Choice Voting). This way a vote for a third party candidate would not be a wasted vote. More people would participate. http://www.fairvote.org/instant-runoff-voting

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

According to a Georgetown University professor of history Carroll Quigley:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

Unfortunately, he thought this is how the system should work. Dr. Quigley was not some fringe radical either. He was one of President Bill Clinton’s professors and was cited by him as a major influence.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I'll meet you half way and boycott voting for any (R)epelican'ts.........:)

I urge you to do the same.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

According to a Georgetown University professor of history Carroll Quigley:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.

Unfortunately, he thought this is how the system should work. Dr. Quigley was not some fringe radical either. He was one of President Bill Clinton’s professors and was cited by him as a major influence.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Next time I go to Georgetown, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to my boycott of (R)epelican'ts.

I urge you to do the same..

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The .01 Percent Primary

More than 300 super PACs are now registered with the Federal Election Commission. The one financed by the greatest number of small donors belongs to Stephen Colbert, who’s turned his TV show into a brilliant commentary on the deformed super PAC landscape. Colbert’s satirical super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has raised $1 million from 31,595 people, including 1,600 people who gave $1 each. Consider this a rare show of people power in 2012.

Otherwise the super PACs on both sides of the aisle are financed by the 1% of the 1%. Romney’s Restore Our Future Super PAC, founded by the general counsel of his 2008 campaign, has led the herd, raising $30 million, 98% from donors who gave $25,000 or more. Ten million dollars came from just 10 donors who gave $1 million each. These included three hedge-fund managers and Houston Republican Bob Perry, the main funder behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, whose scurrilous ads did such an effective job of destroying John Kerry’s electoral prospects. Sixty-five percent of the funds that poured into Romney’s super PAC in the second half of 2011 came from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, otherwise known as the people who brought you the economic meltdown of 2007-2008.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why did you come back, just to change the subject?

Citizens United is just another example of abhorrent, Anti American, Anti Democratic (R)epelican't sponsored legislation, that proves I'm correct in boycotting any and all (R)epelican'ts in all elections.

Won't you join me please, in an effort to save what is left of America?

Throw the (R)epelican'ts out of office!!!!!

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

I'm trying to save (and expand) THE LEFT.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I just told you how to do that.

Won't you please help save America, and throw the (R)epelican'ts out of office?

It's a fact that low voter turnout favors (R)epelican'ts and high voter turnout tends to favor Democrats.

So get out there and vote.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

I clearly don't support any of that. Go ahead and vote. At the end of the day a D or R will be POTUS and your 'vote' won't pull it one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You don't like to answer questions do you?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've completely ignored all the evidence posted.

For some reason, I don't think you will be sitting at home on election day.

Is it worth my asking you , if you've taken your theory to Heritage, CATO, Crossroads, or any number of "right wing" sites? As that would be necessary for your theory to be in the least bit effective.

Why do I get the unshakable feeling, that you haven't?

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Presidential candidates go through a private venting process behind closed doors, away from the public eye. If the candidate can serve the monied interests (Wall Street) well and be a 'money bomb' -- fundraising king, then the corporate monied elite get that candidate in. Obama was that candidate in 2008.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

124 comments already

people take this voting thing seriously

if we all voted using our names

the results could be verifiable to everyone

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep.

Let us all turn our backs and let the candidates of the corrupt/greedy/manipulators walk right in.

How about "NOT"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk about greasing the tracks to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

No matter what you do with your measley little vote -- use it, don't use, vote for a D or an R, or third party candidate: they will walk right in. Your vote doesn't move anything and cannot advance our agenda.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So you go ahead and opt-out. I won't stop you and neither will the greedy/corrupt or their supporters.

Opting-out has never helped and has only ever hurt. Due to apathy and resignation this country and the world has been led and manipulated to this place in time.

It is time ( and past time ) to reclaim the system from the abusers.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

"We did not vote ourselves into this mess and we can't vote ourselve out of it." - Adolph Reed Jr. in the timeless "Sitting This One Out"

http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed1107

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You believe what you believe.

You go ahead and opt-out. Though I hope you are lonely in this form of protest.

You will not affect change standing outside and looking in through the window.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Hoping I'm lonely and looking through a window is as silly as voting for the POTUS :)

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No your urging people to opt-out is truly silly.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Some of these writers seem to be as locked in to the two party mindset as those who continue to participate in it. Why did it not occur to this guy to vote for one of the many third party candidates in 2008?

The main reason people say they won't vote third party is because a third party can't win. Yet the main reason a third party candidate can't win is because people don't vote for them because they think they can't win.

We need to do a lot more than vote, but that doesn't mean that a vote of conscience is wasted. A failure to vote is a waste. Refusing to vote doesn't threaten the status quo in any way. Another party gaining public support does.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

No --- you can vote your heart our for a third party and they will never get in.

It is not just about 'getting in'--- the Monied Elite choose the POTUS -- and this is backed by party-loyal electors.

In 2000, Nader pushed the envelope on 3rd parties -- farther than we've ever pushed before, and still it wasn't even close.

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

You are just repeating the meme that is the crux of the problem when you say 'they will never get in'. Are you arguing that a third party candidate could never be elected even assuming an honest election process? If so, why not?

Yes, election fraud, Supreme Court installment of the president, are events we have seen and could see again. I think people are far less willing to just let that pass now and far more likely to take to the streets. Of course if you don't vote, then it isn't fraud, it isn't a stolen election so there is not even a chance to expose fraud.

Nader did not push the envelope in 2000. Nader's percentage of the vote was quite small compared to other third parties historically.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/042.html

Abraham Lincoln won the presidency running as a Republican only 6 years after the party was formed.

http://freedomwithfivepercent.com/2011/11/the-republican-party-proof-that-a-third-party-candidate-can-win-a-presidential-election/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Under our current system a third party victory is a complete impossibility, yes.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The system has made it increasingly difficult -- to the point of impossible -- for third party candidates.

They are locked out of the monied system. Citizens United took care of that and also any illusion that the people are voting in even a majoy party candidate!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Yet, people are still free to vote outside of the monied system and more and more people are becoming aware of how the system is rigged. Anyone who would 'boycott' the vote is well aware of the system and could also vote for a non-duopoly candidate.

Just because something is unlikely to happen quickly or easily, does not mean it is impossible.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

So long as you stay trapped within the electoral web of lies and within that electoral contraption that they've set up for you you cannot -- there is no way at all -- to vote your values and have it matter. None as the system currently stands.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Well, that's your opinion, for which you have provided little support, only repetition.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

As it currently exists, even if we actually got a majority of votes for a third party candidate, he/she would not win. They would fix the vote one way or the other, but if that third party candidate was making it clear that he/she was going to buck the system, thereby changing the power structure, then he/she would not be allowed to win in a system that is controlled by the moneyed elite. There is currently only one voting system and it is pretty well locked down. If a third/party candidate was allowed to win then, as Cindy Sheehan has said, you will know that they are corrupt.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I think that may well be the case. Yet, if people do not vote at all, no 'fix' is even needed and a chance to expose the corruption of the system is lost.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Yes, but that is not the scenario we are suggesting. We are suggesting a very active protest that makes it clear why we are not voting. In the same vein that OWS does not accept the current power structure we should also not accept the current electoral system. It does not serve us, it serves the powerful.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I think you missed the point. If there is election fraud, there are ways to make that more apparent and track it down. If polls show huge support for a candidate, which is not reflected in the vote totals, this exposes fraud in a specific election in a way which non-voting is completely incapable of doing. A vote boycott actually plays into the hands of the elites by making fraud much harder to detect.

I don't 'accept' the current electoral system and I am actively working to change it. Voting for a third party candidate does not support the status quo.

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I understand what you are saying, but voter fraud has been proven and reported to Congress for more than a decade. The programmers who were hired to fix the vote testified before Congress, among other things. It does no good. It's like expecting Congress to vote themselves a wage cut. Polls are even more easily manipulated than the vote. Then the mainstream media reports the selected polls to show what the Empire wants them to show. They show you that people are voting for the crazy Republicans in part to get the Democrats or even the third parties incensed and out there voting [and simultaneously not paying attention to all the criminal acts the current government is perpetrating]. They have to make the outcome convincing. It's just a show.

OWS is successful because it is putting itself apart from the system, and not trying to make small reforms within the system. Experience has shown us that making small reforms has never amounted to anything. In fact, look where we are: worse off than ever. More people in poverty, more war, less rights. Enough is enough. What scares those that have wanted this elitist system is bucking the system altogether and standing up and loudly saying we are bucking the system. That's when we get real change. Participating within the system implies that the system works. It doesn't. If you want to hedge your bets, vote too. But, really your vote sends the message that the system works. But, what would it hurt to say this system doesn't work? That's what OWS is all about.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Eugene V. Debs on Political Support

The infallible test of a political party is the private ownership of the sources of wealth and the means of life. Apply that test to the Republican, Democratic, and Progressive parties and upon that basic, fundamental issue you will find them essentially one and the same. They differ according to the conflicting interests of the privileged classes, but at bottom they are alike and stand for capitalist class rule and working-class slavery. The new Progressive party is a party of progressive capitalism. It is lavishly financed and shrewdly advertised. But it stands for the rule of capitalism all the same ........ One question is sufficient to determine the true status of all these parties. Do they want the workers to own the tools they work with, control their own jobs, and secure to themselves the wealth they produce? Certainly not. That is utterly ridiculous and impossible from their point of view. The Republican, Democratic, and Progressive parties all stand for the private ownership by the capitalists of the productive machinery used by the workers, so that the capitalists can continue to filch the wealth produced by the workers ....... It is as foolish and self-destructive for workingmen to turn to Republican, Democratic, and Progressive parties on election day as it would be for them to turn to the Manufacturers‘ Association and the Citizens’ Alliance when they are striking against starvation wages.

  • Eugene V. Debs, Acceptance Speech for Socialist Party nomination for President, 1912
[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I think this is a great idea for all the conservatives, libertarians, teabaggers, republicans, and folks that just "lean" that way.

What a wonderful thing it would be for you to protest!!!!!!!

It would show your American spirit, and your true patriotism.

Do what your leaders want and skip the ballot box in 2012!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I will guarantee you that Obama will win, because he has done well by the Imperialists. So, you can relax if that's what you're worried about. Why in the world do you think they put that clown show up as the Republican challengers? They are setting Obama up to win, and for people like you to be relieved when he does because the thought of those crazy nuts winning makes Obama seem sane and rational and wonderful. You will be so relieved that you will overlook all of the things that Obama has done and will do in his second term [and frankly he has been worse on both the domestic and international fronts than Bush/Cheney]. The only other possible outcome, is if they think that Obama is losing clout with enough people [Dems] like you, they will switch hit and put in Romney. But as long as you demonstrate to them that you buy Obama's shit by actually worrying about the 'vote' then Obama will win. Four more wars! Four more wars!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Does this mean, you're stayin' home on election day?

Good for you...................:)

Did you also stay at home for the midterms?

[-] 1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Brilliant. Well, I guess we can write you off as clearly not being part of OWS.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Pretty bad deflect the question.

Though it begs an answer to, who is "we".

You didn't deal with any of it.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax.

[-] 1 points by Risp (24) 2 years ago

Ask everybody to give their vote to occupy. Would be very funny if Occupy will get more votes than the president. That’s a statement !!! And then off course burn the votes officially en declare that politics is not representing the majority of the people. That would hurt politicians ego’s. And then you would absolutely have occupied the elections.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I'm leaning towards the candidate from the Robin Hood Party.

[-] 1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

QUESTION: How many boycotters here would be seriously committed to develop and carryout strategies to make changes?

Remember, we can make dent by bringing 3% of normal voters to our side. Think about it - 3 to 4 million voters who are boycotting!

So how many are truly committed to the work it would take?

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I am.

[-] 1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

I am writing a piece on this from an African American perspective. Talk about blowback. We all know the history. So I get, "Our people died for the right to vote." I need to lectures. Heck, I celebrated the 35th anniversary of bloody sunday in Selma. I walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, holding the hands of a lady that had be in her upper 80s. She was wearing a yellow vest with Dr. King's signature on it from bloody sunday. But what I remind my African American brothers and sisters is this, "The highest exercise of a RIGHT is to withhold it"!

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

"The highest exercise of a RIGHT is to withhold it"!

How so?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

wow... hehehe .. I really don't know how to respond to this .....

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Hi BradB! It's a good point, isn't it? :)

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hehe... yeah maybe a good stand... but also a good way for our potential votes (our combined power in the election) to be worthless ... but a good statement ;)

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

now if we were organized enough to win a write in... that may be a different story

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

That is an impossibility. Empire would never permit such an occurance.

[-] 1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

The voting franchised has been so compromised that the system will not change as long as citizens operate as if we are living in a democracy. Consider that voters are up against today: 1) Citizen United; 2) SuperPacs; 3) K Street; 4) Congressional Gerrymandering where 75% of seats are virtually on party lockdown; 5) Electronic Voting w/ closed-source software; 6) Electoral College Party Blending e.g., Democratic Leadership Council rightwing shift of the DNC; 7) International influences that drive foreign policy and siphon US resources; 8) Too Big to Fail Dogma that drives bailouts; 9) Industries developing policy e.g., AHIP's Obamacare, and US Chamber privatization i.e.; 10) Clinton's Telecommunication Act of 1996 that killed the fairness doctrine and introduced media consolidation; and 11) Jobs Act Irrational voter blocs e.g., blacks consistently voting for one party 90%-95%, Obama received 96%!

Ordinary citizens are running around here as though their votes really matter. What a scam. I submit structural change is needed, not some acquiescence to the myth. Parties treat their "faithful" like a pimp his prostitute. Give out the good and don't expect anything meaningful in-return. Look at the Tea Party members who are rural farmers, duped to think some billionaires have anything in-common with them. The system need an enema!

[-] 1 points by lithosere (65) 2 years ago

Word.

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Why the Third Party Thing doesn't work!

Even the most optimistic third-party dreamers acknowledge the near absolute impossibility of any candidate other than a Republican or a Democrat winning an outright majority of electoral votes. What these independent activists hope to achieve is carrying just enough states—5? 10?—to deny either of their rivals the 270 electors needed for victory and to force the decision into the House of Representatives, as described in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution. At that point, the third-party advocates argue that surging public demand for a fresh start in Washington, evidenced by a strong showing in the popular vote, could force the members of the House to pick their unencumbered candidate over the tired, hyperpartisan alternatives.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/03/drop-the-fantasy-of-a-third-party-candidate-winning-in-2012.html

[-] 0 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Now this is some real grown-up talk. Not meant for the weak stomachs!

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

I am one of the three speakers on the panel! Join us!

The Left Forum -- NYC -- Pace University

Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election -- Room E320 - Sun 10:00am

http://www.leftforum.org/panel/boycott-2012-presidential-election

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

Oh no, if everyone who's spent time under a blue tarp follows the plan, we might be talking upwards of 1200 people!

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Follow this newborn on Twitter! Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election! https://twitter.com/#!/BoycottPrezElec

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election -- Now on Twitter! Follow!

https://twitter.com/#!/BoycottPrezElec

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The post-Citizens United era is “your democracy on meth.”

-Tim Egan, NYT columnist

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

CITIZENS UNITED + SUPER PAC = NO REASON NOT TO BOYCOTT THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION!

"Hey Citizens! You're not needed at the polls! We've cut you completely out of the process! (But, we'll still pretend to need and adore you - it's part of our political theatrics! Enjoy the show!)" - Love, Your Government

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

2012 will be the year of the Super PAC. The millions of dollars raised and spent by these strange and powerful court-created entities have created a kind of parallel campaign.

Super PACs represent much of what is wrong with American democracy rolled neatly into one package. They are tools that powerful special interests and a tiny privileged minority can use to work their will by drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans in a sea of (sometimes secret) cash.

We do not yet have nearly the full picture of how Super PACs have affected and will continue to affect the 2012 elections. Right now, we only have a complete picture of the year 2011. But, we can already see some disturbing trends. http://www.demos.org/publication/auctioning-democracy-rise-super-pacs-and-2012-election

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The .01 Percent Primary

More than 300 super PACs are now registered with the Federal Election Commission. The one financed by the greatest number of small donors belongs to Stephen Colbert, who’s turned his TV show into a brilliant commentary on the deformed super PAC landscape. Colbert’s satirical super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has raised $1 million from 31,595 people, including 1,600 people who gave $1 each. Consider this a rare show of people power in 2012.

Otherwise the super PACs on both sides of the aisle are financed by the 1% of the 1%. Romney’s Restore Our Future Super PAC, founded by the general counsel of his 2008 campaign, has led the herd, raising $30 million, 98% from donors who gave $25,000 or more. Ten million dollars came from just 10 donors who gave $1 million each. These included three hedge-fund managers and Houston Republican Bob Perry, the main funder behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, whose scurrilous ads did such an effective job of destroying John Kerry’s electoral prospects. Sixty-five percent of the funds that poured into Romney’s super PAC in the second half of 2011 came from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, otherwise known as the people who brought you the economic meltdown of 2007-2008.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

2012 is "the year of the big donor," when a candidate is only as good as the amount of money in his super PAC. “In this campaign, every candidate needs his own billionaires,” wrote Jane Mayer of The New Yorker.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

0000063% WILL CHOOSE THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WILL BEST SERVE AND PROTECT THEIR FINANCE CAPITAL

Electoral politics and the 2012 presidential election have become almost exclusively defined by the 1%. Or, to be more precise, the .0000063%. Those are the 196 individual donors who have provided nearly 80% of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 by giving $100,000 or more each.

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The first duty of the revolutionary is to get away with it. -- Abbie Hoffman

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Brought to you by the Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture

POLL: Do you plan on voting in the next election?

Check out the BOYCOTT option!

http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/poll-will-you-vote-in-the-next-election/#comment-542

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Vote Obama,,,,, Four MORE YEARS,,,, of the same.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

We need more scalias !
We need more alitos !
We need more bush !
We need more rove !
We have to find those damned wmds saddam hid in his mustache jesus told me so !
we weally weally do


If you don't vote in 2012, you may not have to vote ever again

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

While I agree that voting for president helps prop up the corporate state by creating the illusion of democratic participation, I also object to voting for president because it involves us in (or at least invites us to identify further with) criminal and morally indefensible concentrations of power along with the gross human-rights violations that inevitably result from such concentrations of power. The allure of "democratic" participation explains the willingness of tens of millions of U.S. voters -- even those who consider themselves "progressive" -- to put their imprimatur on the selection of a criminal who will invariably murder, torture, imprison and forcibly displace other human beings in the furtherance of corporate interests. It is time we loudly countered that allure with a moral objection to further sheep-like complicity in our government's violent support of corporate interests. I wouldn't use the word "disengage." I see it more as resistance, the fundamental key of which is an active withdrawal of consent. -Bob Perillo

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Don't vote ever again.

The Vote for Nobody Campaign http://www.anti-politics.ws/

Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html

[-] 1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Yes! Yes! Principled Non-voting! RIGHT ON!

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

The Ballot Box has nothing to offer you. Why partake in an oppressive system of electoral entrapment?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

you know on the ticket is an option to not vote. So vote no one. this sets it up for a new election

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

That's not what the Boycott is calling for. We are not asking people to quietly not vote, vote no one, etc. We are calling for a very public, very organized, very strategized, communal rejection of the corrupt, immoral farcical electoral sham. IT's an act of resistance -- not quiet strategizing.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

but this makes a bigger stance since only half the nation voted in last election

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

To be elected POTUS you need 270 of the 538 electoral votes. The electors 'vote' for the POTUS. And so, who are 'the electors' -- they are state party, party-loyals D's and R's. The electors are NOT obligated to vote in accordance with how the population in that state voted! This is THE STATE picking who it wants and not you or I.

In effect, your 'vote' for the POTUS is truly a mere suggestion.

Therefore, Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election!

[-] 0 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election Facebook Event Page

https://www.facebook.com/#!/events/179319712162048/

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Yeah, right. I'll bet 100% of the OWS gang will be lined up to vote Obama back in.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

I'm voting for Obama. We need another 4 more years just like he has given us. Vote democrat if you like what you are seeing.

[-] 1 points by gcaorg (19) 2 years ago

Like what you are seeing? Debt until up to the nose, paying billions for interests to the very rich. The US is in the worst position ever, if you like what you see you must be blind.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

It was a JOKE. I hate the way America is headed under obama. America is being lead down into a hole by his liberal agenda. We need to hit all the way to the bottom to finally END liberalism for good. Once it ends we will have an opportunity to go back to the days where there is personal responibility rather than MOTHER government making decisions for YOU that it has no rights to do. I would be 4 more years will do it.

[-] -2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Yikes! You like that imperialist murderer?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

No I dont. I would like 4 more years so that there will be a total collapse of the democrat party. I think 4 more of Obama will do it. So yes, I will vote for Obama. 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

please boycott the elections it'll help get rid of Obama

[-] -1 points by smellyowsloozer (-51) 2 years ago

Yes stay home...don 't vote .Great idea.

[-] -1 points by jerseydevil (-11) 2 years ago

Boycott Obama,that is what should be done. A vote for Obama is a vote for Soft Tyranny and a Dictatorship that will escalate unconstitutional edicts and decrees and further strip Americans of freedom.

[-] -1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

If you oppose the current system, then there is only one candidate you should vote for. i think we all know his name. I can't say it cause the repressive OWS website will ban me.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Ok, so your guy gets elected. So what? The corrupt system is still there. The monied elite who truly choose the POTUS won't let him in, anyhow.

Vote your heart away -- even if what's-his-name gets in -- still won't mean a thing.

[-] 5 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

The other thing is that the office of POTUS is important, but the POTUS does not have the power to single-handedly fix the country unless he can get Congress and the courts on his side. The latter is going to have to wait until at least one or two right-wing justices retire from SCOTUS (under a Democratic president so that they're replaced with moderates and progressives) but the former we can fix, if not in 2012 then in 2014 or 2016 for sure with adequate preparation. Basically, 2012 needs to be about holding the line against the far right as best we can, and then 2014 and 2016 need to be our years. Disengaging amounts to ceding the country to the last people in the world with whom we would normally trust it, whereas if we choose to do more instead of less we can begin to take the place back.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I agree.... until then we can do a lot by side-stepping the battle.... A People's Veto.... along with a Social Reserve Bank .... can do a lot to fix our problems ....

[-] 1 points by EndTheFED (65) 2 years ago

POTUS?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

pres of the us

[-] -1 points by jwaters (-1) 2 years ago

Yes, we MUST boycott the elections. The Occupy movement should debate this, and hopefully from my point of view, come out with a collective decision that the official policy of OWS is to Boycott!

[-] 1 points by gcaorg (19) 2 years ago

Boycott is the worst you can do!!!!

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Regarding the argument that "people have died so I can vote" -- I will boycott the 2012 elections -- and encourage others to do so -- in solidarity with the people who are being killed by drones, those who are imprisoned in Guantánamo, those who are being run off their land and losing their jobs because foreign investors are being given more rights than workers through the "free trade" agreements being shoved down their throats by the U.S. government. None of them have a right to vote in the U.S. either. If we include all the people who are being murdered and marginalized by the projection of U.S. military power all over the world, then the franchise that "people fought and died for" looks pretty farcical. That's not to say that it didn't have meaning when people were fighting and dying for it, but it sure as hell doesn't now.

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Participation in the electoral system is one of the primary methods the system has to keep people from working to dissolve concentrated power. Only a mass popular movement can work to dissolve power and to replace it with democracy.

[-] -1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Boycotting is the way to go!

[-] -1 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

Three cheers for Bloggerken! Right on!

[-] -2 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Excellent idea! A loud, active boycott is called for. To participate in the elections in any way is to suggest that we buy into the propagated myth that elections represent the voice of the people and that our "representative democracy" [not a true democracy] is real and effective. That's a lie. Too continue to pretend that and put energy into the electoral system only delights the moneyed elite. The beauty of OWS has really been at its brave root of realizing true anarchism.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Withhold your vote! Make sure Roe v Wade gets overturned!

Go Nixon!

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Yeah, and don't forget the death of the EPA and the reinstatement of DADT.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

You REALLY think your vote determines whether or not Roe v Wade gets overturned? Your vote doesn't count. At all. The media [the propaganda arm of the govt.] uses people debating these issues as propaganda to help it seem credible that the person who ends up elected was indeed elected in a popular vote. No matter what the popular vote actually was, they make sure the person 'they' want is elected. Period. All the hype surrounding the entire electoral process - the campaigning, the debating, the reporting on it every night on the mainstream media news, the primaries, the ridiculous circus - is designed to get us all focused on picking a team to win [when both 'teams' are going to be bad for us and ultimately perform the same way despite their campaign slogans]. And once we get vested enough to pick our team and therefore our captor - we divest from all other meaningful activism because all of our energy goes into that.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28037) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Another status-quo defender? ( your tone would suggest not but your rhetorical question "You REALLY think your vote determines whether or not Roe v Wade gets overturned?" Would suggest otherwise )

catharine

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Feb. 10, 2012

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That is the best example of hyperbole I have come across yet on these fora. And that's saying a lot.

And it acts as a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Opinions are certainly manipulated by the media, both on the right and on the left, but that does not negate the popular vote. And the left, hardly exists anymore. But the fact remains that if Obama gets elected, Roe v Wade is secure. If Romney is, it is not.

Do you REALLY think your individual contribution to activism determines anything? It has less influence on the court than your vote does. Both actions by an individual are miniscule and have indirect consequences. You are not only presenting a false choice (voting versus activism as opposed to voting plus activism) but you are engaging in a double standard, applying measurements of effectiveness to one course action only, without applying it to yours as well.

[-] 0 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

First of all I say prove that is fact. Obama speaks to what he thinks will assuage the Democrat base and Romney speaks to what he thinks will speak to his base. That's not hyperbole. Many of the things that Obama has "promised" have never materialized. And unlike some Obamabots I don't give him the excuse that it's because the Republicans prevented him from doing so. It was intentional. Invading all those countries was intentional. Not getting out of Iraq or Afghanistan is intentional [no he didn't get out]. And for all the rhetoric, Roe v Wade wasn't overturned under Bush was it? How you vote doesn't influence that.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Roe v wade could not be overturned on Bush's watch because of the makeup of the court. It was 4 - 4 with one swing vote. If Romney wins and puts another conservative on the court (those who are considering retiring are on the left of the court) they will have the locked-in majority to do as they have already indicated they would.

Look at the court. Look at its voting record. Look at who voted for what, and which party appointed them. The pattern is as clear as night and day.

If you want corporations, the wealthy, the military the christian right to have MORE power, abstain.

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

Obama is as pro-corporation, pro-wealthy, pro-military as you can get. Look at the record.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Are you deliberately ignoring what i said, or do you just not understand?

This is about Supreme Court nominations. Did Obama nominate another Scalia or Roberts or Thomas to the court, or did he appoint Kagan and Sotomayor? What kind of person will a Republican appoint? Look at the record of judicial nominations.

Legislation is relatively temporary. Judges sit for a lifetime.

[-] -3 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

You are sadly mistaken. Supreme court nominations are a canard. Justices are part of the same system. The judiciary has very little power anymore. That was all transferred to the Executive, and if you ask some people who are Constitutional Law experts they will tell you just how bad Obama is on that front [and he a Constitutional Lawyer by training]. Try asking Glenn Greenwald or even the ACLU. In January of '09 when he first assumed office the first acts he made cut stronger into our civil liberties than anything Bush did in 8 years.

So, the bottom line is, you are voting for Obama because he appointed Kagan and Sotomayor. OK, well now we know where you stand.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are tragically mistaken. Whether or not Justices are a part of the same system or not is beside the point. What they do with that system - which has not yet been dismantled yet as far as I know - is incredibly powerful. See what happens if Roe gets overturned. Do you really think the Executive can, or would, do anything about it? Do you genuinely believe that will have no consequences to women?

Every single right you have has been adjudicated. Every single one. The legislative branch and the executive combined can do NOTHING that is outside the purview of the courts. It can overturn nearly every law, extend or even change the meanings and enforcement of others, grant rights or restrict them. And, again, every single right you have now has been decided by them, including the right to occupy and the right to have this very discussion on the net.

I don't support Obama because of who he HAS appointed, but because it indicates the kind of person he is likely to appoint going forward, combined with the horrible history of the kinds of people the right has appointed, and are now dominating, by a slim margin, the court today.

If the court were composed of 7 liberals and one conservative, I would have little qualms about your position. But given that sliver of a margin on the current court already doing so much damage (Citizens United, the Walmart discrimination class action case, and upholding the Death Penalty, to name just three) I am horrified that you would advocate a strategy that would grant the right even more power than they do on the court, and hand it to them on a silver platter.

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

This forum is about boycotting the elections - activism. What do you think about that?

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I think the rationale for boycotts is that they inflict some sort of pain on the target of the boycott. If you boycott the vote, nobody cares. In fact, the elites probably prefer it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think it is the most delusional thread I have seen outside of the right wing trolls' specimens. Activism does not abrogate responsibility. Effective activism does not set up false choices, nor does it ignore, like an ostrich with its head in the sand, the realities of the world as it is.

[-] -1 points by catharine (-6) 2 years ago

I would also like to add that Roe v Wade is a perfect example of one of those issues that they use to scare people like you and me into voting. That somehow our vote will make the difference on whether or not that right is overturned. It will not. I used to get sucked in by that too.

I would also like to point out that the 'social' issues are not as important to the moneyed elite power cabal as the 'money' issues are. Witness: the right to an abortion is still secure but the defunding of Planned Parenthood and many other 'social services' for the sake of transferring our collective wealth into the hands of the few including the military industrial complex is well under way - at a speed more rapid than at any other time - and that is happening under Obama! Mr. Hopey-Changey Progressive.

[-] 1 points by bloggerken (10) 2 years ago

Now THIS is the voice of reason. I concur!

[-] -2 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

YAY Catharine!

[+] -4 points by TerriLee (-24) 2 years ago

BOYCOTTING VS. VOTING THIRD PARTY

The value of the third party vote was at one time--about a century ago--great. You could spoil the chances of one or another of the major (capitalist) parties, thereby punishing one of them and forcing that party in the long run to pay attention to otherwise ignored constituencies and you could gain publicity for policies that were otherwise ignored. However, as the two big business parties got more sophisticated and gained greater control over the electoral process and the means of mass communications, they have been able to effectively force third parties, especially left third parties, out of the public discourse and out of the public eye. Left third party campaigns today hardly get noticed, they hardly get any coverage in the media. It's one more avenue for left ideas that has been blacked out by the corporate controlled news media. Third parties have been effectively silenced and have become a waste of our time, money and efforts. And voting in an electoral system that doesn't allow for any voices other than those of the official capitalist parties is simply lending legitimacy to an illegitimate system. It's time to stop supporting a rigged system by voting in it, running in it or in any in it or in any other way participating in it.