Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Crooked Politicians Buy Votes

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 6, 2012, 12:53 p.m. EST by eyeofthetiger (304)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Romney is worth 250 Million?? Why the hell does he want to be president then? He's already super filthy rich Let a normal poor schmuck in as president who is poor and Understands what people want Jobs and Prosperity Quit voting in these rich pricks who could care less about us poor saps

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by i8jomomma (80) 2 years ago

unless we remove every last one of these tea bags ourselves...........that dream is never gonna come true............

[-] 1 points by sayNO2demm (1) 2 years ago

Michael Bloomberg Democrat - $19.5 billion Dianne Feinstein Democrat - 45 million Nancy Pelosi Democrat - $35.2 million Harry Reid Democrat - 3.5 million

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

It should be pretty obvious by now that most of us don't like Michael Bloomberg.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

Bloomberg is that rich?? Obscene

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Maybe Romney is actually motived by public service to his community. He is a Morman, and they"re very big on service to the community. Furthermore, perhaps by being rich he has less motive to be corrupted. None of us really know what motivates any candidate to seek office, I'm just throwing these alternate possibilities regarding Romney's motivation for completeness.

By the way, your statement "crooked politicians buy votes" is factually incorrect. Buying votes is illegal. What they do is buy advertising time, and it's been shown time and time again that We the People are more influenced by these ads than by factual information. Most citizens don't research their vote.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 2 years ago

very big on dipping into the communion offering basket as I understand plus Mormons are horny as hell That's why they have 20 wives Utah is so boring they are forced to live this way

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Do you actually know any Mormans ? I do. Though I disagree with their religion and find most of them personally boring, I do have to admit that they are some of the best citizens I know. They tithe 10% to their church and, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church) , they engage in more missionary work than others. They also have perhaps the strongest sense of welfare and community. See http://mormon.org/faq/welfare-services/ for explanation by individual people and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDS_Humanitarian_Services.

I'm pretty sure you already know that polygamy hasn't been condoned by the main church of Mormon for something like 100 years.

I'm not a Mormon, and I don't mean to be their apologist, but it looks to me like members of the Morman church are generally encouraged to observe many of the same values as we advocate here in OWS. Maybe it's not so bad to have a President indoctrinated with such values over the entire span of his life ?

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • corporations do not have tongues
[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Do unions ? How about trade groups ?

Corporations, unions, trade groups, etc do nothing they could not do by the exercise of personal rights held by the people who choose to associate.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I agree - and I don't really care one way or the other -

the groups you have listed do not have the depth of pocket as do some of the corporations.

It is a fundamental principle of the Occupy Movement - I'm surprised you aren't on board with that.

Perhaps you aren't a supporter of the movement?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I support the movement, but I also support rational thought.

As for whether corporations or unions and trade groups have more influence over politics, see http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php .

Try and operate on facts please.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

here's a fact for ya . . .

and here's another one:

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Partial facts selected to support your position.

Each person in an association of people has a right to free speech. If they choose to make the same statement in unison, they are free to do so. The mere fact that they elect to associate does not deprive them of their individual rights. Attempting to deny people their right to speech simply because they choose to associate and speak with one voice is an incursion on individual liberties. We have to be carefull how we tread and understand the underlying basis of many of our laws before haphazardly trammeling on personal liberties.

You are a propagandist who likes to pick and choose your facts to suite your position. You rely on the fact that few will actually check the facts such as those I linked to at http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php . As a service to the reader, I summarize below the data for the top 20 political donors over the period from 1989 to 2012 in order of the amount given and percentage to Democrats (D) and Republicans (R).

  • 1 ActBlue, $57,248,360, 99% D, 0% R

  • 2 AT&T Inc, $47,859,717, 44% D, 55% R

  • 3 Fed of State, County & City Employees, $46,380,898, 94% D, 1% R

  • 4 National Assn of Realtors, $40,900,026, 47% D, 49% R

  • 5 Service Employees International Union, $37,767,242, 76% D, 2% R

  • 6 National Education Assn, $37,160,699, 82% D, 5% R

  • 7 Goldman Sachs, $36,215,437, 60% D, 39% R

  • 8 American Assn for Justice, $35,102,554, 88% D, 8% R

  • 9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, $34,514,622, 97% D, 2% R

  • 10 Laborers Union, $32,189,450, 88% D, 7% R

  • 11 American Federation of Teachers, $31,883,116, 90% D, 0% R

  • 12 Teamsters Union, $31,438,292, 89% D, 6% R

  • 13 Carpenters & Joiners Union, $31,099,258, 86% D, 9% R

  • 14 Communications Workers of America, $30,306,648, 94% D, 0% R

  • 15 Citigroup Inc, $28,898,827, 49% D, 49% R

  • 16 American Medical Assn, $27,927,035, 40% D, 59% R

  • 17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union, $27,554,308, 93% D, 0% R

  • 18 United Auto Workers, $27,540,152, 98% D, 0% R

  • 19 National Auto Dealers Assn, $27,212,958 32% D, 67% R

  • 20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union, $26,964,727, 98% D, 1% R

It's pretty clear to the non-propagandist interested in the facts that the unions are as big a problem as corporations, Both unions and corporations are associations of people who choose to speak with a common voice, and the right of both to do so derives from the same basis in law.

People like yourself who are disingenuous in their presentation of the facts discredit the Occupy Movement. We need to be factual, even when the facts don't agree with our personal opinions. Otherwise, we are no different than the hoards who listen only to Fox news and then go out to proselytize using half truths. You are simply a liberal version of a Rush Limbaugh fan, and I'm not buying into your propaganda any more than I buy into his.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Unfortunately most dimocrats are uninterested in your data.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Yea, I know. I don't post such material thinking I'll convince the person to whom I respond, I post for the other readers who may still have an open mind.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

wait . . . . wait . . . .

you support rational thought . . . and Romney . . .

that sounds like an oxymoronic and mutually exclusive possibility to me

and I would point out that the Unions did not set about implementation of deregulation of the financial industry as set forth by Inside Job.

Goldman Sux, however, was a principle beneficiary. As such, I find it instructive to see exactly where their campaign contributions went.

Toward that end, I do repeat:

If you want to see all contributions precisely limited and completely transparent - I certainly won't oppose that. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

Each person in an association of people has a right to free speech. If they choose to make the same statement in unison, they are free to do so. The mere fact that they elect to associate does not deprive them of their individual rights. Attempting to deny people their right to speech simply because they choose to associate and speak with one voice is an incursion on individual liberties. We have to be carefull how we tread and understand the underlying basis of many of our laws before haphazardly trammeling on personal liberties.

when you say stuff like that - I hear repeliKan talking points. Money does not equate to free speech - and the suggestion that it does is simply reprehensible.

  • you have a tongue whether someone steals all of your wealth or not

  • corporations do not have tongues

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I didn't support Romney. I proved some alternate views of his motivation that may be just as valid of the cynical views of the poster. It's called "keeping an open mind," and it's especially important when there are no facts to substantiate an opinion.

"when you say stuff like that - I hear repeliKan talking points." What you mean to say is "since you say things I disagree with, you must be evil." That's an absurd and destructive position to take in respectful and civil discourse.

My statements regarding free speech are apolitical. My list shows both unions and corporations are guilty of using money to elevate their own voices above those of the common man in politics. Both are doing so under precisely the same law that defines associations of people as a 'person' with rights.

If you read my post at http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&p=4355&sid=ecb75db80472fd990616a7a67e5c2291#p4355 you'll see I want all political donations banned and the Federal Election Campaign fund used instead. This position is motivated by two facts: 1) The poor often can't afford to contribute and their voice should not be downed out by those like me who can. 2) As long as individuals can contribute, there's nothing to prevent a national organization for "coordinating" their individual contributions to create the same problem as we have with unions, corporations, and trade groups today (my own company does exactly this, by the way; every year they urge each employee to give what they can to a PAC that represents our presumed interests as a group).

I understand your motivation and share many of your concerns, but you are using propagandists techniques in your arguments and seem frightened by facts. I think we have a good case to make, and I don't think we need to be disingenuous or fearful of facts when we argue that case.

[+] -6 points by ZenDog (13422) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

"when you say stuff like that - I hear repeliKan talking points." What you mean to say is "since you say things I disagree with, you must be evil."

nope - that's not what I mean at all. I hear the exact same arguments made by scum bag repelikans - that's what I mean.

every year they urge each employee to give what they can to a PAC that represents our presumed interests as a group).

nice

I'd like to see exactly how those presumed interests are determined.

I mean, don't get me wrong - you could very well be one of those extremely progressive business guys - relatively speaking of course - and if you are that's great.

But the fact remains - repelikans have established a clear policy of sabotaging every single institution and function of government - since at least Ray-gun.

There is no excuse for anyone to vote repeliKan.

And in fact,

as soon as the glaciers are gone

  • so are repeliKans
[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Many of the big banks supported big ears with big money. Citi, Goldman...