Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do you really think another political party is the answer?

Posted 6 years ago on May 16, 2014, 8:07 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Nate Silver has taken a look at how often the word “inequality” has been use by the three 24/7 news networks, the results are here.

OWS pushed a powerful word into the discussion and it took root, the power of focusing on a simple concept can change the world.

I do not believe yet another political party will do anything, they all become creatures more bent on their own existence than the nation at large. Look at the Greens in 2000 telling us there was no difference between Bush and Gore, does anyone really believe that? Political parties will always look after themselves before they do the nation, one party the GOP has outright become an enemy of the nation and must be put down like a rapid dog.

(Stick to the simple message that the rich are too damn rich and the GOP wants to make them richer and we will change the world.)

325 Comments

325 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

Rolling Integrity ~ an answer to a Occupy 3rd Political Party

https://occupywallst.org/forum/rolling-integrity-an-answer-to-an-occupy-3rd-polit/

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

"any political party" so Rolling Integrity is going to find a Republican that thinks labor costs should rise, or return on investment is too high? good luck with that, I wonder if OWS will figure out that "R" stands for the rich getting richer....

[-] 3 points by DouglasAdams (208) 6 years ago

Karl Marx began writing Das Kapital in1843. Das Kapital was published in 1867. During this period the USA was committed to territorial expansion. There was controversy over the spread of slavery and the abolition of slavery, Civil War, and Reconstruction. The problems of Capitalism would not come into focus in the USA until the 20th century.

Capitalism has shaped the direction of politics in the United States. This is why there has been a 2 party system.

The Russian Revolution Explained: World History Review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utr3otFlqp8

Russian Revolution: October Bolshevik Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvoEFKZqT44

(Finalized) Red Scare: American Reaction To Communism 1919

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5yf2UHsA9s

A new party won't add anything if it doesn't oppose Capitalism. The opposition against Capitalism has not been tolerated.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

people like to own objects (and land)

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The "two party system" is not a result of economics or capitalism it results from the winner take all election system up in the constitution, in fact there isn't a "two party system" per say, there is a Party the GOP which sole purpose is to flow power and wealth to the wealthy and preserve their power anything that prevents a member of the GOP from holding office is a victory, if that means not attacking the Dem so be it, whatever defeats the GOP. It is not "the two party system" that is the enemy it is the GOP..

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

attacking dems? why give them attention ?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

why? that's a question each must answer for himself, we have been though this I believe, but it all depends on the goals one sets, as bad as things may be I feel there is still much the GOP could do if allowed to

[-] 3 points by JohnNash (15) 6 years ago

It’s not how many political parties there are that matter. How many brands of cola are there? Republicans and Democrats have become like different brands of cola. Take the Tea Party. The Tea Party is like another brand of cola.

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” ― Karl Marx

A new political party would distinguish itself by doing something for the working class that no one has done since FDR.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3409fdr_banks_33.html

There was an opportunity in 2007-2008 to reorganize the US Banking system to prevent a $700 billion bank bailout and avoid giving bungling bank managers million dollar bonuses for doing a bad job.

Republicans and Democrats are sort of the banking system’s version of Tweelde-dum and Tweedle-dee. They won’t do anything without banking system approval.

Keiser Report: Frankenmarket (E328)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5tT_FL0UU

Max Keiser on Magical Thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNgPY3B4jI

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

"a new political party" would help to elect more republicans like W Bush and cause wealth inequality to increase that is the truth of the situation but it is an inconvenient truth I do admit that.

Speaking of the past there was an opportunity for Ralph Nader and the Green party to support and endorse the most environmentally friendly President the nation had ever had a chance to elect, but instead the Green Party saw their chance to grow and threw the nation and the world under the buss for their own selfish reasons proving the great danger of the "third party" path, this selfishness caused the Iraq war and the CU ruling and now 16 years later climate changes goes unaddressed.

So I guess what I'm saying is I'm in this fight for real, not pretend.

[-] -2 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

You always forget that over half the popualation doesn't vote, and about half of each of the big two corporate parties only vote for theirs because they like the other one even less, not because they are thrilled with their own.

That is the reality of the situation, and if you would get out of your closet and go get busy with the Dems in your city, get out in the public and do some registration drives, you would see this. Its pretty obvious.

Only the blinded Dem and Rep supporters see other things happening and can only think of themselves and their precious belief system.

Its coming whether you like it or not. And its not going to help either of these two monstrosities.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

oh "it" already arrived in 2000 when Nader got 5,000,000 votes and America got W Bush, you are the ones that are always forgetting......

[-] 3 points by ButtonHGwinnett (44) 6 years ago

Capitalism is marked for extinction.

The second half of the 20th century was immersed in a Cold War against Communism in the end the Capitalist moved factories out of the country to cheaper labor markets at the expense of the US middle class..

Michael Bloomberg Harvard Commencement Speech 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhfn2zgFFJ8

Bloomberg blasts liberal Ivy League for intolerance because Brown University students rejected Commissioner Kelly's presence on their campus. The former Mayor of New York left the city's employees without contracts. Unaffordable housing. Poorly performing schools. High unemployment. A aggregate of quality of life issues.

McCarthyism gave American’s an excuse, a false sense of security that our economy would continue to operate without strong regulation and government supervision.

“Consider, for example, Marx’s prediction of how the inherent conflict between capital and labor would manifest itself. As he wrote in Das Kapital , companies’ pursuit of profits and productivity would naturally lead them to need fewer and fewer workers, creating an ‘industrial reserve army’ of the poor and unemployed: ‘Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery’.”

Marx predicted that the development of capitalism would lead inexorably to the concentration of capital, an immense accumulation of wealth on the one hand and an equal accumulation of poverty, misery and unbearable toil at the other end of the social spectrum. For decades this idea was rubbished by the bourgeois economists and university sociologists who insisted that society was becoming ever more egalitarian, that everyone was now becoming middle class. Now all these illusions have been dissolved.

http://www.marxist.com/marx-was-right.htm

Possibly a new American Communist Party may be blasphemy. Americans have been so psychological conditioned to reject communism that they don’t see what capitalism has done to the US economy. Capitalist took the American jobs and moved the factories overseas.

The Chinese Economic Reform

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_TrmNVZxN0

[-] 2 points by ThomasKent (131) 6 years ago

The concentration of wealth by the1% was predictable. Are there rational ways to defuse a potentially volatile and destructive future?

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

someone would have to build the fuses first

so we can rescue ourselves from ourseles

[-] 5 points by ThomasKent (131) 6 years ago

In1867 Karl Marx proposed that the motivating force of capitalism is in the exploitation of labor, whose unpaid work is the ultimate source of profit and surplus value. The employer can claim right to the profits (new output value), because he or she owns the productive capital assets (means of production), which are legally protected by the capitalist state through property rights. In producing capital (money) rather than commodities (goods and services), the workers continually reproduce the economic conditions by which they labor.

The flaws of capitalism had been understood (and understated) since the Civil War. Is it possible that no American Presidents have read the Communist Manifesto-Das Kapital? What else explains a 40-year Cold War, Korean War that has not been formerly concluded, preference for unorganized labor, outsourcing, globalization and the collapse of the American middleclass?

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

unorganized labor, outsourcing, globalization and the collapse of the American middleclass?

It is not reasonable to separate economies by nations

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 6 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Currency exchange rates would separate the economies.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year, which is calculated as the population times market value of the goods and services produced per person in the country. Countries are sorted by nominal GDP estimates from financial and statistical institutions, which are calculated at market or government official exchange rates. Nominal GDP does not take into account differences in the cost of living in different countries, and the results can vary greatly from one year to another based on fluctuations in the exchange rates of the country's currency. Such fluctuations may change a country's ranking from one year to the next, even though they often make little or no difference to the standard of living of its population. Therefore these figures should be used with caution.

Max Keiser Paper Money Collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dculP2KAg_4

The progressive income tax was a successful method to prevent excessive accumulation of capital and distribute capital through government spending and government projects. For example, levee construction in New Orleans. Sea surge barriers around New York City.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Yes.

Truth has incredible power, we can both bring greater equality to taxes and wages if people will learn a little math and focus, OWS could be very helpful in this but it must resist the temptation to allow perfection to prevent progress.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

In the Middle East, the Palestinian people find themselves in the grip of a terrorist group that is embarked on a strategy to get its own children killed in order to build sympathy for its cause—a strategy that might actually be working, at least in some quarters.

I am sick of discussing economics in terms of US only

I find it petty bullshit inciting facism

further, goods and services and needed not jobs

[-] 3 points by ButtonHGwinnett (44) 6 years ago

Sympathy for what cause? What political party is doing anything for Palestine? The real story might be China rising to the number 1 economic power on the planet next year. While the US is dithering over Israel and Palestine, secure borders, the US minimum wage and world peace American corporations have built factories in China.

Our stores are flooded with goods from China because the labor standard there is for sale at $10/day.

Flip the coin. The Peoples Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a totalitarian regime. Whatever border dispute and territorial claims being argued by Israel and Palestine are insignificant to the rise of tyrannical Chinese government seducing an unsuspecting free world.

The proposed minimum wage in the USA will be higher than the estimated daily wage in China.

That is only the tip of the iceberg as the list of human rights violations in China is long and not a business matter for consideration.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/09/chinas-long-history-of-harvesting-organs-from-living-political-prisoners/

Our international corporations doing billion dollar business in China, IBM, Apple, HP, GM, and anybody else should be warned that human rights are more important than profits. And start relocating their factories in the USA.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

that makes those factories Chinese factories built by Chinese people

apparently Americana companies are monarchies

[-] 2 points by ButtonHGwinnett (44) 6 years ago

Chairman of the Communist Party may as well be a monarch.

Is the totalitarian regime ruling in China something the Chinese voted for? I don't think they had anything to say at the time. The Communist Party Chairman made the decisions.

Google "Bill of Rights" http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

Google "Chinese Bill of Rights". http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html

Comments? Equality is mentioned at key places in the Chinese Constitution.

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 6 years ago

Over the last year, Chairman Xi Jinping has overseen investigations into some of China’s wealthiest and most powerful party figures, including those who have profited massively from the state-owned oil industry. He has vowed to take down both “tigers” (top bosses) and “flies” (local officials).

In January, Xi stepped up his campaign by forbidding the promotion of officials who have spouses or children living abroad. These so-called “naked” officials are seen as especially prone to corruption.

“They belong to a high-risk group for corruption,” a party official told the state-run Xinhua news agency. “Around 40 percent of economic cases and nearly 80 percent of corruption and embezzlement cases involve naked officials.” In China, crimes like fraud, bribery, and embezzlement are referred to as economic cases.

This designation covers a large group. According to a report by the Hong Kong newspaper Oriental Daily, a majority of members of China’s 2013 National People’s Congress were “naked officials.”

In fact, Xi himself was one, too. His daughter attended Harvard under an assumed name, and the chairman’s extended family has allegedly amassed assets worth several hundred million dollars.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/140131/war-corruption-ramps-china-s-wealthy-flock-america

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Capitalism is being replaced with Monarchy even as we speak. I have a post on here that links to a list of Royals.

[-] 2 points by ButtonHGwinnett (44) 6 years ago

A great leap backward or capitalists can only act to protect their personal/private interests what happens to the rest of society does not matter? We'd be better off under a benign monarch than global capitalism.

US Capitalists should have built more factories in the USA that were ecological sustainable though less profitable than building the same factories in countries where anti-pollution measures and environmental protection were not legally mandated.

Is this economic treason?.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

environment constraints restrict what kind of factory is built

so cheaper alternative builds may not be available

slave labor yields greater centralized profit but there are restrictions about that to

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 6 years ago

It's a plague.

An exodus of the elite from China is due in part to China’s toxic air and poisonous water, regular topics of complaint among the wealthy (as well as ordinary Chinese).

How China's Pollution Became a National Emergency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rj9Wx_jg40

Where is the most polluted place on Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BszGQiPSQmY

Human price of pollution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHQX-ODKF4

WHO calls air pollution in Chinese cities a crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXz3ZfZDKYA

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The "benign monarch" are we really that asleep?

and the environmentalist made them do it!!!

odin you are still a hoot!!!

err sorry Button? LOL

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

the harvies ?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago
[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago
[-] 2 points by DKAtodayandtomorrow (-7) 6 years ago

Currently one less political party - could be a breath of fresh air - I will let the readers guess which should go ( 1st ).

Further: Check this out.

Nonpartisan study: Right-wing American 'Sovereigns' pose bigger threat to USA than Islamic extremists.

[-] 1 points by DKAtodayandtomorrow (-7) 6 years ago

Supporting the idea of one less party ( to begin with ). Granted it is not the best article out there - but it does speak to some real problems - that are real visible:

No, blacks don't vote Republican because of bad Republican policies

[-] 1 points by DKAtodayandtomorrow (-7) 6 years ago

Further: Koch money = the new kiss of death?

Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:25 AM PDT In Kansas Primaries Yesterday, The Kochs Lost. Badly.

by tmservo433Follow for Kansas & Missouri Kossacks

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

This campaign against moderates was largely successful, and we ended up with the current slate in the Kansas Statehouse.

moderate contains zero meaning

[-] -1 points by DKAtodayandtomorrow (-7) 6 years ago

Support or confrontation of issues is the key. Always has been - always will be. No matter how a government is set up. I just find it funny that the Koch's seem to be throwing away their money. They "SEEM" to be throwing away their money.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

that is because some have more money than everyone else

the "market" is partially determined by those with greater forces of money circulation than others

[-] 0 points by DKAtodayandtomorrow (-7) 6 years ago

That is how greedy assholes operate - buy their way into a position of making more money through bought influence. However it seems that this time their handpicked retainers are losing in primaries. What will happen in the general election is another matter though. Will the Koch's secure ties with the upstarts? If so will the upstarts win? One can only hope that the voting pool will make their own choice ( again ) and surprise the hell out of everyone.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

still waiting for a public ballot

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Our constitution for better or worse creates a "top two" ballot I think you know this, because of this I truly believe that if the energy I see in OWS were applied to exposing the connection between the GOP and wealth inequality, the GOP could be reduced to the point that the remaining party would split and from that split we could build a real people's party, but it's a long road....

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Something ALL should consider

Tweet

DKAtoday @DKAtoday · 12m

@ all politicians

Want Office?

Action required NOT lip service

Work FOR The People & FOR The Environment

OR GO AWAY

SERIOUSLY

start NOW

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Have you ever notice how nobody from the ego parties even runs for county commissioner or any of the less ego feeding offices like corporation commissioner and such. Why do ego whores like the Greens think that people that have never held public office are qualified to be President? Then they come here and want people to waste their time feeding their egos rather than taking effective action to create change.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Did the Koch's get the memo? = Koch money in political races this year spell kiss of death for their candidates of choice ( ummm sorry - it should read = candidates of purchase ).

Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 07:30 AM PDT Koch group cancels ads in Michigan Senate race

by Joan McCarterFollow for Daily Kos

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

good to see you back DK, Did you hear about the new Koch bro movie about a chair that is afraid of the dark to counter that silly public service ad about turning off the lights? nan just kidding, (I hope)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

[ EDIT ] The fossil fuel assholes love to use scare tactics as well as their good for you good for the environment BS.

Edit -> But talking about odd pollution/polluter news - did you see this one?

https://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-and-perhaps-a-bit-insane-but-should-we/

[-] 1 points by publius31 (75) from Fort Lee, NJ 6 years ago

No. All parties are comprised by men and men are corrupt, self-serving animals, just ask the Founding Fathers, see the Federalist papers. After every revolution, the old bad government is replaced by a new good government, intent on doing the right things, on working for the 'good of the people' takes over. Then, in time, it gets corrupted, the law makers make laws for their benefit or get bribed, with money, ego stroking, 'new ideas'', self-interest, and a new revolution is needed. Every time. But Constitution can be amended, we don't need a military revolution, just a political rebellion. But OWS is missing the point, not another set, better set, of representatives. Representatives ultimately represent Representatives. The people must vote directly on the laws. Each citizen, one vote, on each law. Only then is corruption avoided, by the 320 million others of us looking after ourselves, while cooperating with each other: an Actual Democracy. See: www.assosactualdemocracy.com.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I have read it, there is no path from here to there without war or Constitutional Convention, which I do not support nor would I trust, we have a great chance of righting the ship so to speak if we can balance the rules between labor and capital to do this we must remove the GOP from power, they are so tied to the rich must be made richer policies that in a country where over 70% think the rich are too damn rich, this can be done if people put their egos aside and focus on getting out the truth about the GOP, you think this is some small thing but it is not, we can force public funding for elections and once that is done we can begin to take power back from the few and return it to the many, it is not a short struggle it will last decades.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 6 years ago

no political solutions for the worlds problems, what now? http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-political-solutions-for-the-worlds-problems-wha/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

politics is the art of the possible, you promote an impossible solution and therefore your position leads to inaction and greater inequality, as I said in another post OWS decided on suicide rather than killing the GOP because it was too hard to do the hard work of change.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

not when jobs for the military are needed for rent

we take plenty of production actions to support the current regime

...

we are not lazy

we are complacent

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I read my comment, how does "lazy" come into play?

We are complacent, we say "they" are all the same and don't brother to think or vote and so the wealth grows for those that do, and don't for those that don't.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

because it was too hard to do the hard work of change.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

the hard work I was referring to was the work to deal with the ego, that is the hardest work of all, many will labor themselves to death in order to avoid the hard work of working on the ego.

complacent masses yield power to the ego driven few, and monarchy returns, when power is yielded to truth then the people's will could be heard, but truth is not always convenient nor does it always feed one's ego and therefor has little influence in the activities of many including those who camp in parks

[-] -1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 6 years ago

oh, i see. you are one of those people who thinks the system can work. you sir need to read a peoples history of the united states front to back. you are amusing though, it did make me smile.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

so you are more a "can food and shotgun shells" kind of guy, no I don't support the every man for himself kind of thing you are looking for,

I do think that if there were no GOP holding public office, (much easier to do than changing the whole system), people would be paid more and there would be less wealth inequality and that would be a good thing.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

Do I think another political party is the answer?

Hell NO !! We can't do any better than this 2 party, corporate controlled, monopolistic system. Besides, what we have now works soooooo well. We'd be crazy to want change.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

ahh sparky you know how I feel I say kill one in front of the other and the remaining one will straghten its shit out, but you know I'm hardcore I don't believe in these half measures sitting around complaining about the Dems and why can't they fix everything, I say kill the GOP and save America and get this shit fixed

[-] 0 points by JohnNash (15) 6 years ago

It’s not how many political parties there are that matter. How many brands of cola are there?

Republicans and Democrats have become like different brands of cola. Take the Tea Party. The Tea Party is like another brand of cola.

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” ― Karl Marx

A new political party would distinguish itself by doing something for the working class that is no one has done since FDR.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3409fdr_banks_33.html

There was an opportunity in 2007-2008 to reorganize the US Banking system to prevent a $700 billion bank bailout and avoid giving bungling bank managers million dollar bonuses for doing a bad job.

Republicans and Democrats are sort of the banking system’s version of Tweelde-dum and Tweedle-dee. They won’t do anything without banking system approval.

Keiser Report: Frankenmarket (E328)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5tT_FL0UU

Max Keiser on Magical Thinking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNgPY3B4jI

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

the custodians of cash have lost credibility

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 6 years ago

The 1% despots don't really care if you bow down and worship (although they'd love it if you did), they have a reliable base of unreachable zombies who will Vote for them NO MATTER WHAT! In addition to their Voter Suppression and Counting Schemes. They'd just like another 20 million or so Dems or Undecideds or Newbies or Indies to be discouraged, disappointed or mad enough not to Vote, like they did in 2010!!! That would make them have a very happy '14 election cycle ENDING!

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

if they are able to "fix" immigration without citizenship they will create workers without votes and America can become the capitalist paradise the GOP knows it can be....

[-] 1 points by JackPot (87) 6 years ago

Mainland China already has workers without votes. More workers without votes than any other country and will lease them to international capitalists for less than $10/day.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The GOP love China they dream of the day when American workers are as good and hard working as the Chinese.

[-] 1 points by JackPot (87) 6 years ago

I think the Chinese will change as soon as they stop being poor.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I think Americans will change as soon as they stop being "wealthy" I see no reason the Chinese would be paid more later. I see most everyone becoming poor.

[-] 1 points by JackPot (87) 6 years ago

Chinese buyers are now the biggest international players in the U.S. housing market and some states are seeing billions of dollars in real estate deals as a result.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/23/real_estate/chinese-home-buyers/

Chinese Millionaires

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEGEQTol5-Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYBX_wLSVog

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

oh yes I didn't mean all, Chinese, just as here where Americans have never been richer as a whole, and yet so many seem very poor, here we have 24 empty homes for every homeless person,. that's the efficiency of the marketplace at work.

[-] 1 points by JackPot (87) 6 years ago

Why are these houses empty? Is this affordable housing? Don't panic. The Chinese millionaires might be interested. This probably won't be helping the homeless.

Researchers asked some 393 mainland Chinese millionaires – worth £1million or more - about their emigration plans. According to a recent estimate, there are now a million millionaires in China and some 64,000 people classified as “super rich”, worth £10m or more.

And while the US is the preferred destination for residence and higher education, followed by Europe and then Canada, it is Britain’s schools which have proved most attractive to Chinese parents with more than one-in-four saying they would send their children to schools in the UK (29 per cent).

From the Census Bureau: "The median sales price of new houses sold in December 2013 was $270,200; the average sales price was $311,400."

It is likely that Chinese millionaires could pay cold cash for these houses. No mortgage loan - No loan servicing fees for the bankers.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

American millionaires could no doubt pay cold cash as well, affordable depends on what jobs pay, with what Americans on average are paid many homes are not within reach, yet they still are built and so stand empty, 24 empty houses for every homeless person, if jobs paid more that might change, but it is a statement of how the marketplace can get it as wrong as anything else.

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

A lot of the bailout money is being funneled down into the hedge funds, who are buying the homes in huge chunks, and artificially jacking up the prices.

Home prices should still be falling, to the point where people CAN afford them.

But no, the gov loves the banks more as usual, and now we have this.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I do believe housing prices are held high in order to protect the value of portfolios. But to somehow blame the people's government as opposed to the greedy pigs who actually cause this to happen is an odd choice, but maybe not so much for you.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

"The People's Government"? lol

Do you even realize there are bailouts still happening? Its the same principle as the oil subsidies.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The people determine the government it is the people's government, if the people don't vote then it is still the people's government, it was people that choose Bush and Nader over Gore in 2000 the people had a choice, they choose greed, ego, and war over climate and balanced budgets people like Nader and the 5,000,000 Greens that voted for him instead of voting for balanced budgets and doing something about climate change, yes good or bad the PEOPLE get the government they choose.

But more to the point at hand "turbocharger" you are a defender of the pigs of capital and attacker of government, you are a Monarchist.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

our economy receives money for circulation of goods and services like gasoline from bank loans

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

our economy is constipated

[-] -1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

not constipated

dependent on a base distributing money

to circulate goods and service

as the apex lords remove money

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

property is what composes the middle class

if they aren't given money to put into the economy it stops moving

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

wages are an excellent way to give money to the middle class in my opinion, if jobs paid better there would be more of them, not less as many would have us believe

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

good point

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

getting everyone employed should not be our political goal

making sure people are provided for should be

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (489) 30 minutes ago

getting everyone employed should not be our political goal

making sure people are provided for should be ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

With Healthy Economic Practices ( including a minimum Living wage as well as gender wage parity ) the economy would be in a better position of employing people ( providing employment opportunities ) and providing for those in need would be less of a problem as well as expense as more people would be working as well as more would be working for a wage that would not require government ( State or Fed ) support.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

You are an idiot! Change the world. And what would you know about that? Read history and find out how the world has been changed. Fool!

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Forget parties, focus on pushing policies that benefit the 99%

http://ivn.us/2014/05/16/millennials-tap-youngest-generation-voters/

y'know what I'm sayin?

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Debate and vote the issues, If we leave the meaningless partisan bashing, and empty personal attacks behind, we can discuss the facts rationally allowing us to identify representatives who are speaking to our issues.

Protest, Vote (& get as many as possible to the polls), then protest again.

Voting is what we do between protesting

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Then pressure ALL pols to pass policies that benefit the 99%

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

so where do we hold the assembly of 300,000,000? you people who think this is so complicated when it's not, the GOP want to give more power to money and more money to the rich, that's bad, work to throw them out of office, if you tell people the truth the rest will work itself out

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Why 300,000,00? Do you think the people in Maui should have a say in the lives of the people in Augusta, Maine or vice versa?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

or the folks in Beverly Hills worry about those in East LA

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Do you think that the people of Beverley Hills should have a say in the lives of the people of East LA? What about OC or Venice or the Valley?

I don't think Beverley Hills should be involved in the government of east LA.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I see where you're going, guess I'll just write my own rules and you write yours, that should work out great! They got a word for it I think they call it anarchy or something like that, now are you talking full blown shotgun shells and can food anarchy like a Mad Max movie?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

global trade is very real

shipping on water is efficient

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Yes, but is centralisation of governance the answer?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

yes or no?

it helps if everyone knows about interaction

centralized information

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Yes, but isn't that an oligarchy? Power should be spread out, not concentrated.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

if all have access to the information

power won't be centralized

[-] 1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Information should dispersed, not centralised.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

available

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

You can forget parties if you want to, I know the GOP wants OWS to

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Just trying to moderate the excessive anti Dem/Obama bashing while expressing the truth/my opinion that the most useful debate is about the issues.

Obviously, only one party has engaged in a massive effort to suppress liberal/progressive/dem votes.

You and I are allies even if I am attempting to minimize the partisan flame wars. (they are truly most entertaining)

Solidarity

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

We are in this mess because people have forgotten that the GOP work to make the rich richer and to keep wages low, the only way any of this will ever get better is if people not only remember that but make one hell of a big deal about it, unfortunately it doesn't look like anyone will and wealth inequality has increased at an increasing rate since the fall of 2011, it is so sad when I think of what could have been done if OWS had not been so afraid to actually do something.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I think occupy/progressive efforts are only growing since 2011, I agree we must identify politicians (parties where necessary) & their positions on the issues, Economic inequality, is a high priority issue for me. Seems to me the movement is still growing,

Rather than spend time thinking of "what could have been", I'm thinking of what could be.

Identify, & retire all pols against reforms to address economic inequity. (living wage, exec pay limits, expand soc security, unionization, robin hood tax, buffet rule, trans tax, job creation in country, tax cuts for workers, tax increases on wealth & on the wealthies passive income, & more)

The pols/parties will be clear when considering these issues.

Solidarity, Stay positive.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Right now the GOP stands to win the Senate in 2014, and their chances are currently improving here is a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/?smid=tw-upshotnyt

I do not see OWS talking at all about what a disaster this would be for America a Supreme Court seat could be at stake, wealth inequality has increased at an increasing rate since the fall of 2011, I would love to see progress i just don't.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Many progressive groups are talking about (& acting) Senate/Scotus/2016/inequity. 2014 will be tough for progressives. Success is possible but not likely.

But this fight is multi generational. One election, even only elections is not enough of a focus. What happens outside elections will increasingly have more & more influence on the progressive change we all need.

I understand you don't see it. Hasn't been much to see, but if we keep fighting change will come.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The GOP chances have risen to 64%, it will be a "Robert's Court" for the next 30 years most likely, it really matters a lot who wins elections, and the GOP are getting a pass because OWS doesn't want to be political or to take a real stand. Yes it is generational and each generation must be informed of how the GOP works to make the rich, richer, and money more powerful, confusing youth with this "they're all the same" crap makes real change very hard if not impossible.

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

anyone for stopping the bombs from dropping

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

chances are up to 65% now to think that a few years ago 70 to 80% of Americans agreed with OWS about wealth inequality and now because of people trying to use OWS to do everything from prison reform to anti-war efforts the GOP stand to win the Senate put more judges on more courts like Roberts I would think it is just a matter of time before they rule minimum wage unconstitutional, wealth inequality is growing at an increasing rate the thought that any Republican could win any seat anywhere given how they work to make the rich richer, but rather than actually doing something to change things people at OWS would rather "make a point" well I hope you can pay rent with that "point" so go on Matt talk about war while the GOP help the rich get richer....

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

I will not vote for any candidate that supports the air strikes

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

i'm with Matt

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

if you value peace above all other things, prepare to give up all other things for peace....

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

thanks

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I guess air strikes are more important to you than wealth inequality, I understand your position you should start a anti-war site Matt

I suppose you support all corporate merges since that helps to bring peace, one day there may only be one company and then there will be peace everywhere all the planet will work for the benefit of one family but Matt you will have your peace.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

wealth inequality can only be maintained through violence

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

and so wealth inequality begets violence, cure the inequality stop the violence.....

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

violence allows inequality because those that object may be put down with violence

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

wealth provides the means to buy to force to put down objections, you mistake the disease for the symptom, violence is required for me to keep you from mine this is a result of wealth inequality not a cause, the cause of wealth inequality is public policies supported in large part by the GOP

[-] -1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

violence is a physics issue not a human motivation issue

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Agreed. I see slow progress, after decades of lurching right, we've begun to correct our direction.

The GOP is obviously well on their way to a split or obscurity. Seems obvious to me.

We Just gotta ratchet up the pressure.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

The GOP are well on their way to winning the Senate, in great part because it is OWS that is split and moving into obscurity, driven by its association with third parties, since so many of us still remember 2000 and how stupid it is to support third parties.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Peace. Vote how you like. I know we agree on the issues.

Good luck.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

OWS has a presence on FaceBook, https://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt?fref=nf

I'm not sure who controls it, it seems fairly focused on the big issues I repost their stuff often, more decisive action against the GOP could help; but people who are that motivated often get lost in the forest of corruption that is government and it is difficult to see how a path to truth can be cleared out, I believe it can be done by chopping down the GOP.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

Your disdain for freedom, democracy and competition is disturbing.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

freedom not to be shot

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

"freedom"? have you listened to the only person to be born in a North Korean camp to have escaped? Do you think he was dreaming about "freedom"? No, he was dreaming about a belly full of pork. Freedom is a concept sold to the masses like religion designed to pacify them, here's musical education about "freedom":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

your disdain for change is even more disturbing

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Heres Occupy TV!

http://occupytelevision.com/

Facebook, radio, TV, occupiers usually share my view on the issues, & that is never shared by the GOP.

So that's something anyway.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I don't think occupy has hurt Dem party at all. Sorry. However OWS's focus on income/financial issues has given rise to progressive movements/protests that continues to grow, & influence people/politics all over the country & even world.

OWS only helps DEM cause/agenda. 3rd party talk, & not taking part in campaigns doesn't hurt Dem party, 'cause the millions of people awakened, excited, influenced by OWS ARE involved in campaigns.

Even if OWS founders/members/believers disagree, they don't control the people they have awakened.

That's what I think. It's all good.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

what is sad is that because there is so much attacking of Dems and so little of the GOP from OWS that it does little to move us forward, truth is the GOP will win the Senate and that need not have happened, had OWS presented a focused message when the country was listening, there is virtually no talk of MW, and we have become complacent in reporting the ever increasing wealth gap...

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

We've only just begun, the progressive message OWS shares with millions of people/dozens of groups is growing every day.

Senate will go where it goes, OWS is not responsible one way or the other. They do get credit for rejuvenating progressive activism though, & THAT is why OWS is good for progressivism & Dem party agenda.

Peace

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

with power comes responsibility, to say OWS is not responsible is to say it is powerless, unfortunately I might agree with you there but it didn't have to be that way....

in spite of what the Green/GOP cabal would have you believe I have been to OWS events here in Phoenix and I found them to be infected with political want-a-be's seeking to funnel the energy into some "Green Party" scheme it might not have been that way everywhere but those of us who have lived through 2000 and the Iraq War and the Robert's Court we know the danger and I saw numbers fall, I know I had no interest in helping any cause that might help the Greens.

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I support the green party agenda. & I do not tell people how to vote.

Best to present info & let people decide.

It's the only way to retain freedom of political expression.

I look at all progressive efforts (OWS is a small player actually) as positive for the eventual success of the "we're in this together" philosophy.

Gotta coalesce with ALL like minded groups. Even greens, regardless of what happened a decade & a half ago.

Solidarity, find allies, don't make enemies! It's counter productive.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

If you're not telling people how to vote you might as well pop a beer sit back and watch some TV. Because sitting around complaining about stuff is OK I guess but voting is doing something about it! But I'm sure you make a pretty sign.....

Greens are poisonous puke and present the greatest danger the Nation faces! They are political hacks bent on feeding their own egos and care nothing of what happens to the country to feed it.

I came to OWS because for many years I have seen the growing wealth inequality in the nation and I believe it to be a major problem, not just a "fairness" thing but for the very survival of the nation, the Greens increase wealth inequality by making it easier for the GOP to be elected and pass policy like dividend and cap gains tax rates that cause wealth inequality to increase therefore the Greens are a part of the problem not the solution. Not until the Greens stop putting names on the ballot can they be friends to anyone who really wants change rather than to just feed someones ego. The only reason the Greens put a name on the ballot is to feed some idiot's ego.

oh and I do present the information and let them decide, you can vote to defeat the GOP or not, if you don't then whatever they do is your fault

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

what definition of ego is this ?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Now we would enter into a spiritual and philosophical discussion which might not be appropriate for the board, but the short answer is "ego" is that part of you that says you are "better" that your ideal is "better" I have come to believe that some have referred to the "ego" as the "devil" as if it were something external, but i do mean ego in what I think is the classic sense of the word. These political hacks that dream of seeing their name on some ballot convince a bunch of kids they can change the world and at most they help elect a Republican and the hack gets to talk about how many votes he or she got for rest of their lives, meanwhile the people in power write rules that secure the wealth of the wealthy because that's what the GOP does.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

Sorry dude but the vote is simply the tally of the work put in the previous two years.

It starts with generating the people to run for the seats. 2014, as usual, is a clear demonstration of the status quo kicking the people's ass. And I'm not talking about a nice whippin, I'm talking about a brutal beat down in terms of effort, planning and execution.

You are totally brainwashed at this point, as are about 25% of the country (10-15% of Dem voters and 10-15% of Rep voters). If OWS didn't open your eyes, then most likely you fall into the "hopeless" category, not worth the time.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you hit the nail on the head here - maybe a hit on the head would open his eyes - maybe?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

no one thinks congress will stop the terrorist bombing of the US military

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 6 years ago

Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.

Ego is self identity and is the decision making part of our minds

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

and camping in the park is just camping in the park, unless it affects people's votes, and causes change....If the GOP wins in 2014 it will be due to the efforts of people like you.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

You are free to go to your local Dem headquarters and create a movement like OWS at any time.

Of course, you will fail, but you - and more specifically the DNC- know that, hence your still grasping to OWS even though most in Occupy have already moved on.

The DNC/RNC. Always last to the party.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

hey you hit on some truth,

most that were involved in the Occupy movement MovedOn once they realized what a hotbed of third party idiocy it was.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

If its a hotbed of 3rd party idiocy, then what are you doing here?

Troll much?

This outta be interesting.... What percentage of people in occupy Phoenix do you think support Move On? And what percentage do you think didnt support either of the big two political parties or any of the 3rd parties either?

Fire away you crazy old kook!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

so you're just a typical politician wanting to check in on "the polls" are you?

damn political hack

you got a lot of questions how about you tell me do you or do you not care if the GOP wins the Senate in 2014?

oh and "what am I doing here?" I am reminding OWS that it once stood for something.....

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Blah, blah, blah. Your partisan blather is so tired. The work between elections is more & more important, when Elections come we must simple keep supporting candidates who support our progressive agenda, & defeat those who do not.

Separate the labels, boxes, & partisan distractions you are fed.

The issues are what matter, & what we do during/between elections matters beyond your party focus.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

If it matters beyond the party focus then what is the plan.

See, everyone says stick to the issues, but if it comes down to amendments or policy, then there has to be a plan that require representatives at this point.

So what is the plan? If my "partisan blather" is so tired- which was a response to someone pretty much blaming Occupy for the happenings of the machine- then what would be fresh and new?

Please explain.

ALL of the work, yes ALL OF IT, is done between the elections when you are talking about working within the system. ALL OF IT.

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I have to explain to you why the useless debate of D v R is a distraction designed to prevent discussion/addressing/resolving real issues that affect the 99%?

I think you already know. You have chosen where to expend you energize.

Right smack dab in the middle of the D/R partisan debate/distraction.

And that is your right, as it is mine to point it out & ask for more valuable discussion.

Peace

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Yes I do and you are no fool!

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Appreciated but flattery unnecessary, as is the insults I suppose.

the issues are the purest way to debate. Parties, labels, .personal attacks on people is truly counterproductive. I admit it is more fun but unproductive.

Peace

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

All very true but sometimes they get what they deserve. Try discussing with that little shit sometime and let me know if he can answer a straight question from you. I am tired of the democratic party lovers not admittig that their beloved saviors work for and are bought buy the .01%

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere. A bit partisan, but I met a shadz who also seems to be on a crusade against Dems & liberals.

Are you goin after the liberals too?

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

like lbj and Clinton and Obama - yup. this is a nonpartisan anarchist site. Clinton and Obama are better than Reagan and bush but they still are carrying water for the elite so they need to be called out for their crimes - and I do mean crimes - they are both murderers - no exaggeration just a FACT. no excuse for killing except in self defense and the last time we did that was ww2! agreed?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I support peace, and use of military rarely if ever.

For me this site is a small vehicle to agitate for support of the policies that benefit the 99%.

partisan/non partisan, I don't care, anarchist, whatever.

The president (the whole govt has been bought by the oligarchs) "carries the water of the elite".

That is why we are in the street fighting to take our govt back.

[-] -3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

we agree but are you going after liberals?? do you support Obama and how many military bases around the world now?? is it 1000 yet and still growing. how many countries are we bombing? and how about that Ukraine situation - we seem to support fascists no? where do you stand - not sure if I can tell - mr facts supports the dems and attacks anyone who points out the truth - that both parties are "bought by the oligarchs!"

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I support cutting def budget & diplomacy, I protest to that end of course against ALL pols who disagree.

Useless bashing of pols for bashing sake or flame wars with other forum members appeals less to me because it seems unproductive & too partisan.

I certainly don't buy the fallacy that "both parties are the same", because that is right out of the corp oligarchs playbook to distract us from the substance of issues and the implementation of policies that benefit the 99%.

no?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i have said many times that the dems are for the most part better than the gop (ron pauls foreign policy puts Obama to shame) and much better that the nut job wing of the gop! not interested in flame wars but there are many here who equate pointing out the truth of the democratic party with doing the work of the gop - it is not! here is my boy noam on the two parties - SPIEGEL: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform?

Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

SPIEGEL: You exaggerate. In almost all vital questions -- from the taxation of the rich to nuclear energy -- there are different positions. At least on the issues of war and peace, the parties differ considerably. The Republicans want to fight in Iraq until victory, even if that takes a 100 years, according to McCain. The Democrats demand a withdrawal plan.

Chomsky: Let us look at the “differences” more closely, and we recognize how limited and cynical they are. The hawks say, if we continue we can win. The doves say, it is costing us too much. But try to find an American politician who says frankly that this aggression is a crime: the issue is not whether we win or not, whether it is expensive or not. Remember the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did we have a debate whether the Russians can win the war or whether it is too expensive? This may have been the debate at the Kremlin, or in Pravda. But this is the kind of debate you would expect in a totalitarian society. If General Petraeus could achieve in Iraq what Putin achieved in Chechnya, he would be crowned king. The key question here is whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Waste of time debating the parties are the same.

They ain't.

You keep mentioning "others here" believe, or you target factsrfun but you really do NOT speak for anyone else. I can't accept your testimony about the people you are flaming right?

However, you certainly speak for yourself and have made it abundantly clear that you excessively partisan (targeting the Dem party) and too willing to personally attack forum members. You are either distracted too easily (same party fallacy) or willfully pushing the corp/oligarch effort to distract voters with the same party fallacy.

Meanwhile Occupy has continued to fight (along with growing numbers of like minded progressives groups & individuals) and make progress on improving the lives of the 99%.

We are best served by focusing on the substance of issues and fighting ALL pols to pass policies that benefit the 99%.

Oh, BTW, Norm agrees with this (if that impresses you). I spoke to him years ago about this stuff.

Your welcome

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

while noam agrees with you on this statement - We are best served by focusing on the substance of issues and fighting ALL pols to pass policies that benefit the 99%. - he also agrees with me on this statement - Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party. - pretty obvious no? now go play with the kid who would not know a fact if it hit him in the face- you are wasting my time

[-] 2 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Money is irrelevant. No ones goal in life should be to rich.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

while I agree with you on that there are plenty of billionaires and wannabes who do not. also money is not in any way irrelevant - not if you live in this country today - you need to eat no?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

And so you argue for a 3rd party? Great! we got plenty, vote how you like.

Why do you need to spew the partiesthesame fallacy?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Because Noam and I think it is accurate. Would you care to respond to what Noam said on the subject. Go ahead state your case. Defend the point or be like too many here - offering opinions with nothing to back it up

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

"I'd vote against any Republican.." Noam Chomsky.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30866.htm

Do you agree with Noam now?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Shadzy, (your fellow partisan operative?, sock pup?) wrote this I think.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30866.htm

Does that help you understand Noam better?

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 6 years ago

VQuack ?! Once again, are you - taking the fkn piss here ?!! Tho' I can support flip in much if not most of what he may say - I am not him but GF seemed to want to think that too, interestingly enough, lol !!!

You above almost everyone else on this forum, really should not bandy ''sock pup''pet around, lololol !!!!

I've had your b-s comment brought to my attention and it was very interesting to review this thread which I'd not done before. I'll get to your at least 5 boxes ; as well as the 2 from WendySmith ; 1 from MadDog and I'll be addressing the matters of 'comment stream manipulation' .. and my shadow banned replies to factsRfukt and snooz later too but I am busy and not at home right now, so u can patronise me later lol.

You are the now self revealed parDisan here & you and your DNC cohort on this forum ... in your 'mid term mania' can wait, but rest assured, I will get to you in due course - and soon but in the meantime :

From your ICH link: ''Noam Chomsky- What we're seeing is that a partial democracy is being shredded by concentrated domestic power. Authentic democracy would have a much better chance to thrive and flourish, I think. I don't know of any preferable alternative.'' -- I have no issues with what NC said in your link OR in the first three links I append above. All those views are compatible and Noam Chomsky was speaking specifically to the Obomber-Romoney POTUS race. It is possible to hold more than one view at a time at any given time you know, however neither Chomsky or u are unaware of the dilemma here.

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] -3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I've already stated the fact that the parties ain't the same.

The meaninglessness of the debate on the slight party similarities and profound party differences puts that debate well below the priority and usefulness of debating issues/policies that benefit the 99%.

  • Income inequity living wage w/ cola,

  • Worker owned business, co ops,

  • Public option healthcare

  • Expanding Social security

  • Redistributing wealth/ending extreme concentration of wealth, power. breaking up banks, media, fossil fuel corps

I mean the "parties same fallacy" IS a distraction strategy of the corp oligrachs.

It is false equivalency designed to prevent the debates we MUST have.

Like arguing about whether the scientists are right on climate change.

It's simple distraction, designed to halt progress on discussing actions.

As far as responding to Noam comments. When I speak to HIM I will.

Most likely I will discuss important issues. Not this mindless partisan strategy to prevent substantive debate.

We are all better off when we put aside these partisan flame wars and personal attacks so that we can focus on the necessary and infinitely more substantive issues/policies that will benefit the 99%.

You are a one trick pony? Attack one party, bash the Pres, distract w/ false equivalencies, & disrupt substantive debate with personal attacks & fame wars?

Easy peezy

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

instead of waiting to talk to your buddy noam and telling him he is off base when he says the parties are largely the same, how about putting your evidence down here - now. that way we can all be educated instead of just poor simple noam. sure we have gay marriage and womens choice - not small issues but what about nuclear war and 1000 military bases around the world. what about bombing 5, 6 or is it 7 countries now?? what about single payer and economic justice. how about telling me how many goldman sachs people Obama has in his administration? what about noams point that both parties feel we have the right to bomb the world - what about that - can you get on one of your ponies and explain your thinking on those issues?? can you?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

flip and shadz work to help keep the GOP in power if you stick around a bit you will start to see their work all over the site tearing down anyone who threatens the GOP

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Flip seems afraid to even respond. HA!!

Between you & me the forum is not so big that anyone should attack it. Their preoccupation indicates they are either unaware of the low value and or afraid of any forward thinking conversation.

best to ignore them in most cases.

But you are clearly a supporter of the policies that benefit the 99%.

Thanks. Stay strong. You ain't alone.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

take a look at my posts if you like, you be the judge....

https://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=user%3Afactsrfun

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Fightin the good fight, that's what I see.

Stay strong.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

corp influence on the parties

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/19/corporations-which-are-republican-which-democrat/#7427101=0

Does this illustrate the need for radical change? Does it help you understand the vacancy of debating the sameparty fallacy?

I suppose you always knew that.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

the fallacy of the two wings of the same capitalist business war party - no not at all. let's do a little test of your intelligence - respond in detail to this - can you - point out the difference in the two parties - as an aside I like this line - Noam Chomsky: Bush tortured people they didn't like, while Obama just murders them

The Politics of Red Lines: Putin's takeover of Crimea scares U.S. leaders because it challenges America's global dominance

Noam Chomsky

In These Times, May 1, 2014

The current Ukraine crisis is serious and threatening, so much so that some commentators even compare it to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Columnist Thanassis Cambanis summarizes the core issue succinctly in The Boston Globe: "[President Vladimir V.] Putin's annexation of the Crimea is a break in the order that America and its allies have come to rely on since the end of the Cold War -- namely, one in which major powers only intervene militarily when they have an international consensus on their side, or failing that, when they're not crossing a rival power's red lines."

This era's most extreme international crime, the United States-United Kingdom invasion of Iraq, was therefore not a break in world order -- because, after failing to gain international support, the aggressors didn't cross Russian or Chinese red lines.

In contrast, Putin's takeover of the Crimea and his ambitions in Ukraine cross American red lines.

Therefore "Obama is focused on isolating Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state," Peter Baker reports in The New York Times.

American red lines, in short, are firmly placed at Russia's borders. Therefore Russian ambitions "in its own neighborhood" violate world order and create crises.

The point generalizes. Other countries are sometimes allowed to have red lines -- at their borders (where the United States' red lines are also located). But not Iraq, for example. Or Iran, which the U.S. continually threatens with attack ("no options are off the table").

Such threats violate not only the United Nations Charter but also the General Assembly resolution condemning Russia that the United States just signed. The resolution opened by stressing the U.N. Charter ban on "the threat or use of force" in international affairs.

The Cuban missile crisis also sharply revealed the great powers' red lines. The world came perilously close to nuclear war when President Kennedy rejected Premier Khrushchev's offer to end the crisis by simultaneous public withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and American missiles from Turkey. (The U.S. missiles were already scheduled to be replaced by far more lethal Polaris submarines, part of the massive system threatening Russia's destruction.)

In this case too, the United States' red lines were at Russia's borders, and that was accepted on all sides.

The U.S. invasion of Indochina, like the invasion of Iraq, crossed no red lines, nor have many other U.S. depredations worldwide. To repeat the crucial point: Adversaries are sometimes permitted to have red lines, but at their borders, where America's red lines are also located. If an adversary has "expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood," crossing U.S. red lines, the world faces a crisis.

In the current issue of the Harvard-MIT journal International Security, Oxford University professor Yuen Foong Khong explains that there is a "long (and bipartisan) tradition in American strategic thinking: Successive administrations have emphasized that a vital interest of the United States is to prevent a hostile hegemon from dominating any of the major regions of the world."

Furthermore, it is generally agreed that the United States must "maintain its predominance," because "it is U.S. hegemony that has upheld regional peace and stability" -- the latter a term of art referring to subordination to U.S. demands.

As it happens, the world thinks differently and regards the United States as a "pariah state" and "the greatest threat to world peace," with no competitor even close in the polls. But what does the world know?

Khong's article concerns the crisis in Asia, caused by the rise of China, which is moving toward "economic primacy in Asia" and, like Russia, has "expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood," thus crossing American red lines.

President Obama's recent Asia trip was to affirm the "long (and bipartisan) tradition," in diplomatic language.

The near-universal Western condemnation of Putin includes citing the "emotional address" in which he complained bitterly that the U.S. and its allies had "cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't involve you.' "

Putin's complaints are factually accurate. When President Gorbachev accepted the unification of Germany as part of NATO -- an astonishing concession in the light of history -- there was a quid pro quo. Washington agreed that NATO would not move "one inch eastward," referring to East Germany.

The promise was immediately broken, and when Gorbachev complained, he was instructed that it was only a verbal promise, so without force.

President Clinton proceeded to expand NATO much farther to the east, to Russia's borders. Today there are calls to extend NATO even to Ukraine, deep into the historic Russian "neighborhood." But it "doesn't involve" the Russians, because its responsibility to "uphold peace and stability" requires that American red lines are at Russia's borders.

Russia's annexation of Crimea was an illegal act, in violation of international law and specific treaties. It's not easy to find anything comparable in recent years -- the Iraq invasion is a vastly greater crime.

But one comparable example comes to mind: U.S. control of Guantanamo Bay in southeastern Cuba. Guantanamo was wrested from Cuba at gunpoint in 1903 and not relinquished despite Cuba's demands ever since it attained independence in 1959.

To be sure, Russia has a far stronger case. Even apart from strong internal support for the annexation, Crimea is historically Russian; it has Russia's only warm-water port, the home of Russia's fleet; and has enormous strategic significance. The United States has no claim at all to Guantanamo, other than its monopoly of force.

One reason why the United States refuses to return Guantanamo to Cuba, presumably, is that this is a major harbor and American control of the region severely hampers Cuban development. That has been a major U.S. policy goal for 50 years, including large-scale terror and economic warfare.

The United States claims that it is shocked by Cuban human rights violations, overlooking the fact that the worst such violations are in Guantanamo; that valid charges against Cuba do not begin to compare with regular practices among Washington's Latin American clients; and that Cuba has been under severe, unremitting U.S. attack since its independence.

But none of this crosses anyone's red lines or causes a crisis. It falls into the category of the U.S. invasions of Indochina and Iraq, the regular overthrow of parliamentary regimes and installation of vicious dictatorships, and our hideous record of other exercises of "upholding peace and stability."

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I do know why Emma Goldman said that famous quote.

So?

Do you have some point you are trying to make?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

the point is self evident so I assume you do not know the background - her point destroys your argument

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

You don't even know my argument. Let alone what might destroy it.

Emma Goldman focused on protest. I love me some Emma Goldman.

Of course, what Emma Goldman, or Chomsky, or Zinn, or any of my influences say/did/believe is not my position automatically.

I KNOW that direct democracy is within our grasp and I KNOW that it will only work if ALL take part by voting and maintaining protests.

Destroy that distractoid!

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

seems your only point is "vote protest vote" - emma said "if voting could change anything it would be illegal" - what is the context of that quote and it blows up your point about mandatory voting

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

But there are major forces trying to make it illegal for millions to vote.

http://www.news-record.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_43cd65c0-eaa3-11e3-8337-001a4bcf6878.html

(one of countless examples)

That certainly proves Emma Goldmans point that attempting to make voting illegal shows voting CAN change things.

Does that help you understand the present any better?

NEXT DISTRACTION!!!!

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you must be joking - or really stupid - I am going with stupid. Emma's point is the opposite of yours - come on kid

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Emma Goldman a great fighter for the 99%,

a hundred years ago she worked w/ women suffragettes,

80 years ago embraced Spanish revolutionaries who voted.

She believed small victories in the revolution had there place. She is frequently quoted as saying "if voting mattered, it would be illegal"

So obviously if they (pols controlled by corp oligarchs) ARE making voting illegal then they must KNOW that voting can change things.

Based on the logic of Emmas quote (you keep disrespecting by using).

In any event Emma died 3/4's of a century ago. I love her but I can't hang on her every word.

I gotta think for myself.

Don't you?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

what you are doing is not thinking - you seem unable to think beyond voting when it is obvious to anyone that has been voting for dems from lbj to Clinton to the right of Eisenhower Obama that the dems are not going to change anything of substance

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

There are major forces who would like to make voting compulsory. Emma Goldman was an anarchist.

[-] 4 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I did not state that YOU SAID "you're on your own".

I only asked that the "you're on your own" mentality be rejected.

Perhaps you do.

Beats me

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

I agree. But you must also understand that groups are made up of individual constituents (often at odds with each other) and are not unitary actors in any capacity.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Good for her!.Love Emma Goldman!

I support direct democracy. That means ALL must perform that precious civic duty of voting.

"if voting couldn't change things, they wouldn't be attempting to make it illegal"

Understand history and the future comes into focus.

"we're in this together", reject the "you're on your own" mentality.

It is selfish, greedy and self destructive.

[-] 0 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

When did I ever say "you're on your own"? Associations between people should be voluntary and plentiful. I am all for individuals working together.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

did you notice what it says on the ows poster??

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Yes. Why? Do you need something else explained?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

did you see the word vote there??

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I did not. Does the poster dictate the entirety of your life?

Poster doesn't say anything about the bathroom, how do you manage?

smile

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Diplomacy over war! End the drone stikes!!

If you're asking party diff on Crimea/Ukraine,: one party is pushing for troops on the ground, and would have us at war with Russia, and the other is resisting that pressure and allowing Germany to attempt diplomacy.

Whatever, sameparty flamewars are distractions that take away from the substantive discussion necessary to achieve progress on the policies that will benefit the 99%.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

as usual you have no regard for the facts - when bush was in power we had a similar invasion by Russia and nothing was done - from "crooks and liars" - "After Vladimir Putin sent troops into the Ukraine, the neocons and Republican foreign policy wonks went ballistic, claiming that Obama emboldened Putin's invasion since he is such a weak, Kenyan Muslim. However, a niggling problem for the neocons making this erroneous claim is that Putin also invaded Georgia in 2008, when their beloved George W. Bush was in office. Though Bush escaped accusations of being a weak Kenyan, he did nothing to thwart Putin's invasion of Georgia. Many people have brought this up to show that their talking points are--as usual--false. Not one pundit, journalist or politician on either side of the aisle has tried to make the claim that George Bush handled that situation with so much strength that he curbed Putin's plans at all. I mean, Russia is still in Georgia. As in, today."

[-] -2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Did you say "niggling", in describing the President.?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

I have a question - are you liar or just really stupid?? first of all READ! carefully - you are not smart enough to skim material - I state "FROM crooks and liars" - I did not write the piece - second you little weasel it says - "However, a niggling problem for the neocons making this erroneous claim" - you have mostly stupid opinions and refuse to debate with any honesty but at least you should not try to LIE! ok, sorry - maybe it is possible that you are that stupid but wow - that is really stupid

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Incoherent screed? Flip.? Your childish, offensive rant only illustrates the weakness of your position regarding same party fallacy.

Attacking me with schoolyard taunts.

Transparent distraction Much?

I'll get the post regarding Party differences on racism.

Cool?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

no not cool - respond to what I wrote - you put this shit up - "Did you say "niggling", in describing the President.?" -now that can only be a deliberate lie to distract from the FACT that you don't have an argument or you are really stupid - do you have a third possibility?? you argue that -" one party is pushing for troops on the ground, and would have us at war with Russia" - but when the Russians invaded Georgia bush did nothing. this shows your analysis is incorrect - as usual - back up your point or go play somewhere else. cool?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I did respond. You accused me of lying, I did not, What lie? You called me childish names, I laughed at the immaturity and responded.

Now I have again for you.

Finally, I will get the post regarding Party differences on race that you have asked for, with your racially offensive post.

Almost done.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

"However, a niggling problem for the neocons" - there I put is up front so you cannot miss it. you cannot be that stupid - really - not possible - so what is it - do you not know what niggling means or you cannot read this and understand to whom it is referring - ""However, a niggling problem for the neocons" read the whole quote - slowly and try again. there are some here who just want to cause confusion - there are some here who are so stupid that they cannot have a rational discussion. and I do not care about what you think of the parties differences on race - or much of what you think about anything since you cannot discuss like a normal human.

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

hehehe :)

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Vote out racists, forget sophomoric jokes

http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/41048-racism.html

hehe he ;)

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

hate ta say it... but likely v true... not only racist... but anti-feminist also...as well as anti-illiterate!! hehe :)

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

??? What are you trying to say?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/05/sen-jay-rockefeller-gov-charlie-crist-republicans-racist

Protests, Vote, & back to protests

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

no I did not - as a matter of fact I was reading the splc and giving them money before you were born. so I answered your question - you answer mine - do you support this party? (I will get you the rest of the article by paul street if you want it) - do you understand the implication of this bi partisan agenda?? doubtful.

Largely United States (US)-provoked events that could lead to regional and even global war are unfolding in Eastern Europe, sparking talk in the reigning US media-politics culture of a “new Cold War” and a return of “great power conflict” between the “democratic” United States and “autocratic Russia.” At the same time, significantly US-generated developments are sparking regional tensions and related conflict between the US and the rising power China in East Asia. It’s an apt moment to reflect on how it all relates to what Washington has really wanted and done in (and to) the world beneath ritual US claims of benevolent and democratic intent during this and the last century.

I. THE COLD WAR MYTH

“Democrats versus Communists”

A good place to start is with the real Cold War, something very different from the official US version that still rules in the dominant, elite-shaped US public memory. .Like tens of millions of (United States of) Americans, I was born into a nation caught up in the great national Cold War myth. According to the reigning fairy tale, constructed by Washington’s imperial planners and disseminated across the national political, media, educational, intellectual, and civic landscape, the Cold War was a great global partition and conflict (never fully “hot” because of the threat of “mutually assured nuclear destruction”) between two roughly equal global superpowers – the “free market” capitalist and “democratic” United States and the “socialist” Soviet Union.

This narratives rules to this day. For example, a December 2013 Washington Post column bearing the title “China and Russia Bring Back Cold War Tactics” recalled the Cold War era as “The world divided into two… haves, democrats versus communists” (editorialist Ann Appelbaum).

The Cold War was caused, prevailing US doctrine and conventional wisdom held, by the fierce global aggression of Soviet Russia, driven by its “socialist ideology” to conquer the world by any and all means. The United States’ role was purely defensive: to contain the relentlessly expansive and subversive Soviet beast and protect the world from totalitarian communism, which had replaced Nazi Germany and its Japanese fascist ally as the great menace to world liberty after World War II. Uncle Sam was the great defender of global freedom, democracy, peace, justice, and “national security,” all gravely endangered by scheming and brutal expansionists in Moscow.

Soviet “Socialism”

The legend had little to do with reality. Whatever the claims of its ruling elite, the Soviet Union was not remotely socialist in the authentic sense of the word: workers’ control and popular democracy for the common good. Soviet Russia was an authoritarian state-capitalist and bureaucratic despotism that had little to do with Karl Marx and other 19th century leftists’ dream of capitalist class society being replaced by “an association, in which the free development of each is the conditions for the free development of all” – a “true realm of freedom” beyond endless toil and necessity and “worthy of [homo sapiens’] “human nature..”As US Marxist economist Richard Wolff notes, early Soviet non-capitalist experiments in which workers were “both the producers and the appropriators of surpluses” were quickly “abandoned under multiple pressures.” Further:

“Soviet socialism – and increasingly socialism in general – came to be redefined in terms of what actually existed inside Soviet industrial enterprises. There, hired workers produced surpluses that were appropriated and distributed by others: the council of ministers, state officials who functioned as employers. The Soviet Union was actually an example of state capitalism in its class structure….by describing itself as…socialist, it prompted the definition of socialism to mean state capitalism.”

Along the way, the Soviet Union quickly descended into a top-down political tyranny whose harsh dictatorial reality – replete with dungeons and mass political executions – was far removed from genuine socialism’s democratic, grassroots, and popular-participatory ideals.

US “Democracy”

The United States, for its part, was no democracy during the official Cold War period (1947 to 1991). It was a state-capitalist corporate plutocracy managed by and for a revolving door “power elite” comprised of big business executives, military officials and political elites both elected and unelected. Representatives of the majority working class populace and civil society were granted a distinctly secondary role in the making of policy and the shaping of political and popular opinion. As the great American philosopher John Dewey observed in 1931, US politics and policy were little more than “the shadow cast on society by big business.” He rightly predicted things would stay that way as long as “business for private profit” controlled the nation’s means of finance, production, and communication – a forecast that proved accurate through the Cold War era and to the present day.

It might seem at first that Dewey spoke too soon. Between the 1930s and the 1970s, a significant reduction in overall economic inequality (though not of racial inequality) and an increase in the standard of living of millions of working class Americans occurred in the United States. This “Great Compression” occurred thanks to the rise and expansion of the industrial workers’ movement (sparked to no small extent by Communists and other radical left militants), the spread of collective bargaining, the rise of a relatively pro-union New Deal welfare state (on whose left margins Sinclair would push during the 1930s), and the democratic domestic pressures of World War II and subsequent powerful social movements. Still, core capitalist prerogatives and assets – Dewey’s “private control” and “business for profit” – were never dislodged, consistent with New Deal champion Franklin Roosevelt’s boast that he had “saved the profits system” from radical change. The gains enjoyed by ordinary working Americans were made possible to no small extent by the uniquely favored and powerful position of the United States economy (and empire) and the remarkable profit rates enjoyed by U.S. corporations in the post-WWII world.

When that position and those profits were significantly challenged by resurgent Western European and Japanese economic competition in the 1970s and 1980s, the comparatively egalitarian trends of postwar America were reversed by the capitalist elites who had never lost their critical command of the nation’s core economic and political institutions. Working class Americans have paid the price ever since. For the last four decades, US wealth and income have been sharply concentrated upward, returning to pre-Great Depression levels, marking a New or Second Gilded Age that is directly traceable to a number of regressive and plutocratic policies that have nothing to do with any shift right in the populace and in fact run contrary to majority progressive opinion that has little real influence on the making of US policy domestic or foreign.

The US before, during, and since the Cold War proper has shown little resemblance to a nation under genuine populace governance. Its ruling class has been no more eager to see real democracy and popular sovereignty – the ultimate nightmare of the nation’s late 18th century Founders, truth be told – break out in the US (or anywhere else) than the Soviet elite was interested in granting power to ordinary workers and citizens in Russia.

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Wrong???

You don't support mandatory voting rights for all?

Or do you disagree that expanding the vote threatens corp/oligarchical control?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

did anything change when women got the right to vote - doubled the vote and where do you see the sea change

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Well... FDR's election & New Deal/leftward turn in US followed within a couple of elect cycles. So....... I suppose. yeah things changed for the better, for awhile.

But so what?

Now we are dealing with our failure at maintaining & expanding on those changes (from womens vote!). Our voter apathy/low turn out is what allowed the corp/oligarchs to gain the upper hand for decades.

So I think your question/example proves we MUST increase voter turnout!

It's what the corp oligarchs fear the most. Their continued efforts at voter suppression illustrates that fact.

The corp oligarchs "have concentrated wealth & power, all we have is our voices and our votes!!"

Enough?

Seems hopeless, except that... "the power of people is greater than the people in power."

It will have to do.

Are you arguing we should NOT vote?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

no I am saying (for the 20th time - why do you have so much trouble with this??) that voting is a minor part of how change is made. was it douglas who said "power concedes nothing without demand" - do you know exactly what he meant by that. he was NOT talking about voting. you are either uninformed or a sophist - as you should know the depression got fdr elected not women voting. my point about the womens vote is telling but you cannot seem to debate honestly and concede even a small point. too bad - maybe they will reoccupy the park and we can discuss there - where you cannot hide in the "cloud." in case you are not aware when women were pressing for the vote they felt that the "womens vote" would end all war - no woman would vote to send her child to kill and be killed. well smarty pants turned out emma goldman was right - as usual - no?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Love me some Emma Goldman.

Your silly flamewar attacks are unworthy to be a part of the same comment. Little man.

Protest, VOTE, repeat!.

We can't take back the peoples govt from corp oligarchs without MANDATORY voting for all. (one day a year)

And constant, growing protests, everyday.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you either did not read emma or did not understand her. I know it is silly of me to ask (since you seem to be incapable of normal dialogue) but I would like you to respond to the point - fdr and the depression and a simple history of emma and the womens vote - do you know why she said - "if voting could change anything it would be illegal" - still love you some emma??

[-] -1 points by HCabret2014 (-11) 6 years ago

Emma Goldman is an anarchist. Are you suggesting that the US abolish its government? I thought you wanted us to vote?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I love history, it informs my activism.

It shows us why, & how we must continue this fight against corp oligarchs all over the world.

Protest, VOTE, & protest.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

hey little boy - you read mainstream shitty history - for sure - but as I said I answered your question now how about answering one or two yourself. what kind of cold war history do you read and what do you think of this version?? can you answer that or are you too busy disrupting things here. you know anything about this movement. do you know anything about "the park" - you wouldn't make it there - you debate like a little boy

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

bored in the announcement circle

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

FLAME ON!!!! lol

You're too much. "what kind of cold war history do you read"??? "think of this version??" C'mon man. Why? It's very interesting. thanks for posting it.

You wanna connect this to the topic (3rd parties),? does that matter?

Or would you rather continue the meaningless, personal attacks on me?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

I would rather continue the personal attacks - you keep dishing up softballs

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

But we do agree that mandatory voting is our best chance at taking back the peoples govt from corp oligarchs?

Expanding the vote offers 3rd parties more opportunity to influence and/or win.

Increasing turnout is what the corp oligarchs fear the most.

Right?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

if everyone voted with their name

we would know the count

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

wrong

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

sounds like minimum wage increase will do nothing to change our owe until you die economy

property will still be held by the elite

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

| "if everyone voted with their name | | we would know the count"

Responding here.:

I think this might be a more productive use of our energies regarding elections/campaigns.:

http://action.cwa-union.org/c/1372/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7879&tag=web:%28campaignfinance%29mainsite-rotator-20140221/7879

Good idea

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

signed

I want to reduce the influence of big money on my job and income

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Thx

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

if the people had a significant proportion of the money to contribute

they could pay for work they would like done

instead of having to work for someone that has all the money

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Sounds good.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I got tired of W Bush and the Iraq War but that didn't change nothing when you vote for the f'n Greens you get the GOP and some of us are tired of people draging youngs folks down that rabbit hole which feed power to the 1%.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

we were all tired of w but 8 years of those boys and the country elected a black man in 2008 to make real change. and what did he do - he put larry summers in charge of the economy - what did that tell you? more war - still in Afghanistan (never should have been there in the first place) - we would still be in Iraq if we were not forced out by the Iraqis - 1000 bases around the world and supporting fascists in Ukraine. the rich got richer and a health care system that no other developed country in the world would stand for. I could go on but why bother. "change you can believe in??"

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I think he was elected based on his campaign promises (combined with the fact "we were all tired of 8 years" of bad policies.

Like maybe this candidate can win:

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16875/jess_spear_socialist_of_the_sawant_persuasion

I didn't include skin color cause I didn't think it matters.

do you?

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

we agree - he was elected to create 'change we can believe in" and he did not. i notice you did not address any of the facts i mentioned - why is that? they don't matter either? and yes skin color matters - ask any black person. the fact that we elected a black man is even more telling - in this very racist country - no?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Why bother debating if your partisan distractions are true or not?

This thread topicis is on 3rd party access.

Here's something new that touches on OWS & 3rd party activism.

http://www.nationofchange.org/occupation-reconstruction-movement-just-beginning-1404826559

(oh btw way your "1000 base number" is not accurate). Do you think the base number (whatever it is) is related to the thread topic?

I suppose my position against war, MIC, Nukes, Govt Assassinations, covers my opposition to the excessive bases you allude to.

I think though I will save my opinion for the appropriate thread.

Any other "facts" (useless, dishonest partisan bashing?) I can clarify for you?

Glad to help

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

first of all 1000 is accurate - do you have evidence to the contrary - is it from the pentagon? secondly if you are against " war, MIC, Nukes, Govt Assassinations" then you will join me in opposing the obama administration and it's threatening the use of force everywhere in the world, wars, wasteful military spending and assassinations - oh yes and it's nuke policy

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Of course I oppose/protest US war.

My focus has always been centered on economic issues.

This thread is on 3rd party access so why are you talkin about war.?

No more war!!

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

nice deflection

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

How so? Not meant to deflect.

Certainly not from the 3rd party thread topic.

You wanna comment on 'the After party' or the 'Working Families Party?'

Or will YOU deflect again?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Your "facts" are simply more of your usual partisan distractions.

Just as your focus on race is a distraction from the topic.

A 3rd party is not viable because of the current party duopoly. As we fight to change campaign/election laws we must elect candidates who support policies that benefit the 99%.

Once elected (Obama, Bush, whoever!) we must pressure all pols (repub, dem, ind whatever) to enact those policies.

Every topic/post is not an excuse to bash a party/pol. Appointments? 1000 bases? fascists?

What are you talkin about? How is that or skin color related to campaign/election/3rd party topic?

In any event in regards to your predictable off topic partisan bash:

All govt failures (whatever party/pol) regarding serving oligarchs/profit over people is the reason we are growing this progressive movement.

If you have something on topic to contribute that would be welcome and surprising.

PEACE!!!

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

the facts i presented are not a distraction - maybe to your agenda but not that of ows. if you do not understand what 1000 bases and larry summers have to do with the state of the world you will have to think longer and harder. if you do not realize we are supporting fascists in ukraine you need to read stephen cohen. if you do not understand what it means to elect a black man president in this country i feel sorry for you - well i should anyway but i don't for some strange reason

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I know very well what Bases, and appointments have to do with the state of the world. I only agreed they were the reason (among others) we fight

And responded accordingly:

"All govt failures (whatever party/pol) regarding serving oligarchs/profit over people is the reason we are growing this progressive movement."

To suggest I DO NOT know what they have "to do with the state of the world " (when I responded directly and acknowledged them as part of "all failures" we fight against) clearly perpetrates a phony argument.

(A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument)

Once again you show your amateurishness.

So once again, your 'facts' (such as they are) may be correct, if so of course horrible, and finally the reason we fight.

I maintain though that your 'facts' are off topic & simply your weak attempt to distract from the topic substance.

So, If you have something on topic to contribute that would be welcome and surprising.

The weak games are not valuable contributions and not challenging enough for entertainment.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

this is what you said -"Your "facts" are simply more of your usual partisan distractions. Just as your focus on race is a distraction from the topic." - then this - "So once again, your 'facts' (such as they are) may be correct, if so of course horrible" - the implications of your words is that first of all the facts ARE a distraction not the gibberish you responded just now and secondly that you are not sure they are facts - start reading! lastly my contributions are valuable and entertaining!

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Still nothing on 3rd party need?

Here's a new related snippet

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/a-search-for-underfunded-yet-qualified-political-candidates/374058/

& to reiterate: Your so called "facts" if true, are part of why we fight, if not, they're just your usual partisan bashing, in either case they are a distraction from the substance of the 3rd party thread topic.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

"if" they are true - you are showing your ignorance - and why don't you say the same thing one more time - just in case i didn't get it the first 5 times you wrote it

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

What does the color of the Presidents skin have to do with anything?

And isn't he more white?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

well in 2004 if told you that this very racist country would be so fed up with the state of affairs that it would elect a black man you would not have believed it. that is for sure. now he is half white but not in the "land of the free and home of the brave" - one drop makes you black - no? - from wiki - The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States for the social classification as Negro of individuals with any African ancestry; meaning any person with "one drop of Negro blood" was considered black. The principle of "invisible blackness" was an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status.[1]

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Wow you know a lot about race. Can you answer this race question?

What does the color of the Presidents skin have to do with anything?

And he IS more white, right?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

did I miss something here - I thought I answered your question. let me put it another way - I think it shows how fed up the country was in 2008 that it elected a black man - something thought impossible by most only a short while before. as to half white - again I answered that no - yes he is half white but not according to the mainstream view of most in this great country

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

What a useless exercise.

His skin color is irrelevent to the substantive issues that face the 99%. Is there no distraction you will not resort to.?

I suppose when an argument is weak, distracting from substance is preferable.

3rd parties are frozen out of power. several key changes must occur. None of which you ever mention.

Vote how you want. If you want a 3rd party how will we correct 3rd party access inequity?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

I agree this is useless - you seem unable to comprehend what I wrote - I will try again - "I think it shows how fed up the country was in 2008 that it elected a black man - something thought impossible by most only a short while before.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

because I didn't read it

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Huh? I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

Maybe this thread related info will get you back on track:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/threes-a-crowd-where-third-party-candidates-might-have-an-impact/

Does this jive with your postion?

[-] 5 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

are you stoned?

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

So "PARTy..sycophants (of which you see only one as problem)...need to becountered" (by you), but you are NOT PARTisan?

Or are you saying you ARE partisan because you need to counter the party sychophants you disagree with?

In any case clearly you are admitting your partisanship right.?

Any specific issues you might be interested in? I mean besides the counter partisan mission you need to conduct.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

if by partisan you mean supporting either the democratic or republican party - I support neither. when I have voted in the past it has been for dems - McGovern, carter, Clinton ( the first time not the second since like Obama he ran as a moderate lefty and revealed himself to be a centrist republican) and Obama (the second time even though he is a self proclaimed lover of capitalism and a murderer of grown men and small children). as to my issues I support anything that moves us in a better direction on war the economy and sustainable development. a direction better than Obama and the mainstream of the dems are moving us. I could go on but what is the point - you have not shown the ability to have a discussion of any interest to anyone but your fellow shills for the dems. I am certainly able to change my mind if you would like to know what I think and debate issues like someone who cares about the 99%

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I'm just sayin if you were truly interested with pushing 3rd party, you would be talkin about those issues necessary to improve 3rd party access. Like overturning C U, open debates, public funding of campaigns, open primaries, electoral college elimination, compulsory voting, and others.

But you never deviate from attacking one party (or Pols fr that party).

I always understand your points. Simplistic as they are. Attack dems, & bash the President.

Predictable, mindless, partisan, tool?

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

as you would know if you read much of what I post I am not so interested in 3rd parties - although I think it would be a good idea. and a 4th and 5th perhaps - some alternative to the two pro business capitalist loving parties we are saddled with now. more important seems to me is educating the population on the most important subjects. the populist movement is a good example here - dirt poor farmers who came to understand money and economics better than professors from yale do today! and money and economics are how we are trapped by the system - no? I do not only attack the dems but since you don't read what I have posted over the years you wouldn't know that. lately democratic party loving moderators and sycophants have dominated this site and they need to be countered - the democratic party will not - NOT save us and believing that - as factless does is a huge mistake. attacking the dems Is not partisan and you show your ignorance saying that - seems you can only see the attacks from the right and are not aware that there is a more informed critique from the left. lastly you rarely understand what I write to you - and you are correct it is simplistic and obvious since that is all you seem to be able to grasp - and still you miss the point. please don't waste my time making me proving that statement - and please stop wasting my time and that of others - offer your opinions without backing it up (that is all you do you know) and leave it at that. then you might be helpful here instead of a distraction

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Perhaps you might be interested in ending citizens united to improve 3rd party access.?

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Citizens united is the worst! I take your response to mean that you now understand the point I was making

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

so you're a racist too? anyway why do you suppose we were in the Iraq in the first place? oh yeah because Nader couldn't find a difference between Bush and Gore...f'ing idoit!

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i see you are as stupid as 99 and hc - d you guys all go to high school together? now let's see - once we are in iraq a new pres cant get us out right??and remember scotus

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

True Roberts wouldn't be on the court either so there would not have been a CU ruling and the destruction of the political system if Nader had not been too blind to find a difference between Bush and Gore, stupid ego driven jerk that he is, he and those that support the Green Party are reasposible for the Iraq War and all the rest.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

You are entitled to your opinion. Silly as it may be. Fact is gore won the election even though he ran a shitty campaign. The court gave bush the presidency

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Fact is the Court would not have mattered if Nader had not been blind as bat, we need to open people's eyes so they can see the difference and make sure the Robert's Court don't get a chance to give us another Bush, you IDIOT!

Fact is Nader went all over the country telling a LIE and telling lies do not help open people's eyes.

Fact is you are an ego driven idiot hoping to steal OWS for your own selfish reasons.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Clinton and gore ended welfare as we know it. Lower taxes on the rich. Deregulated financial markets. Killed 500,000 Iraqi children and bombed Yugoslavia out of existence. No wonder that pro business wsj loving administration could not get re-elected! What do you think of those idiotic facts??

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

"man up" you are so bold answering at the bottom of the thread, Here let's see if you can "man up" tell us exactly which of the Bush admin policies did you love the most the Iraq War or the CU ruling? You deny the FACT that had Bush not been elected Gore would have given your hatred for Gore tell us more of your love of what Bush did go ahead man up

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

it is not clear to me at this point but this site may be going in a new direction. a direction where you cannot get away with bullshit - as in the "have you stopped beating your wife" question. not sure if you are bright enough to be aware of it but that is what you just did. so i will answer your childish question in the hope that you will address the issues i raised. i was against all of the u.s. aggression in iraq - from daddy bush's war to clintons sanctions to shrub's horrifying war - and i protested them all in the streets of nyc - didn't see you there. i was also against the cu ruling as anyone who reads what i write or post would know. now it is your turn - which of the clinton gore policies were you against - which of those policies protected and enriched the ruling elite? careful spanky or your user id might be factsrfuntroll

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I read you below I did not realize you were such a full throated supporter of the Bush policies. But your comment is classic con bullshit. So do you get paid by GOP flip or are just a their bitch for free?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

which facts are incorrect - can you answer that. don't like dean baker - you think he is a shill for the gop - come on sonny boy - man up

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

so you prefer the Iraq War and CU ruling that Bush gave us? do you think Bush 41 2nd trem would have been better than Clinton who also saw real wages increase and the debt reduced, you fight for the GOP you filthy pig!

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

ok, so now we can get into the real debate - which one is worse! first of all clinton benefited from the tech boom which had nothing to do with his policies (dean baker will follow). as for the debt that is an issue of the rich - do you understand that. the bond vigilanties - google it! here is baker - please read it carefully and respond to the points he makes since he is talking about YOU (in case you weren't sure this is what i mean - "liberals, including many who think of themselves as highly knowledgeable about economic matters) "The truth is often painful but nonetheless it is important that we live in the real world. Just as little kids have to come to grips with the fact that there is no Santa Claus, it is necessary for millions of liberals, including many who think of themselves as highly knowledgeable about economic matters, to realize that President Clinton's policies sent the economy seriously off course. In Washington it is common to tout the budget surpluses of the Clinton years as some momentous achievement, as though the point of economic policy is to run budget surpluses. Of course the point of economic policy is to produce an economy that improves the lives of the people in a sustainable way. Clinton badly flunked this test.

The Clinton economy was driven by a stock bubble. This is not a debatable point. The ratio of market-wide stock prices to corporate earnings was well over 30 to 1 at the peak of the bubble in 2000. This is more than twice the historic average............This was the economy that President Clinton handed to President Bush in January of 2001. It was an economy that was being carried by an unsustainable bubble that, in fact, already was in the process of deflating at the time Bush took office. The S&P 500 was more than 10 percent below its 2000 peak and the NASDAQ was down by more than 40 percent on the day that Bush took office. This pretty much guaranteed the recession that began in March of 2001 just as the collapse of the housing bubble placed President Obama in the middle of terrible recession in January of 2009.

The 2001 recession was the main reason that the surplus vanished in the 2002 fiscal year. Directing tax cuts to the wealthy was a foolish policy response to the downturn, but it was reasonable to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the stock bubble, just as it was reasonable for President Obama to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the housing bubble. The Bush tax cuts did provide a boost to the economy, although they would have provided a larger boost if this money had been directed at moderate and middle income people or devoted to long-term investments like education and infrastructure...........To have a sustainable growth path we have to reverse one of the other central policies of the Clinton years, the over-valued dollar. This policy, which was put in place when Robert Rubin became Treasury Secretary, ensured that we would have large trade deficits. The trade deficits were good news for Wall Street with its obsession over inflation. It was also good news for companies looking to move operations overseas to take advantage of cheap labor.

However, the high dollar was terrible news for the country's workers, who were placed at an enormous competitive disadvantage. It resulted in the loss of more than 4 million manufacturing jobs. It was also bad news for anyone who doesn't think that bubbles are a clever way to drive the economy.

Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans.

The big difference is that, unlike the Republicans, the Rubin-Clinton crew believes that the rich should have to pay their taxes. That's something, but until there is someone in this debate who isn't pushing policies that redistribute before-tax income upward, the vast majority in this country can only lose.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

focus is needed, focus on wealth inequality and thrown the people out of office that work to make the rich richer, it's easy to pick them out they're the Republicans

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Repubs are lock step with oligarch anti 99%.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116122/republicans-talk-poverty-talk-cheap

Dems must be pushed to show spine & pass the policies that benefit the 99%.

So vote for the candidate that supports those policies then keep up the pressure!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Vote for the person that can beat the GOP, if you vote in such a way that the GOP wins the seat, your "point" won't matter the law matters and that will be written by the 1% if the GOP hold the seat.

If you want the person that can beat the GOP to be the best they can be work in the primary to make it so, support Elizabeth Warren, but if she don't win support who does to keep it from the GOP and right on down the ticket, it's the best shot America has.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Along with a continuation of a growing, progressing movement to pressure all pols to pass policies that benefit the 99%.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=142440289196614&story_fbid=188495094618282

Protest, vote, then protest again!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I know the world would be a very different place today if Nader had supported Gore instead of helping Bush win the White House.

How do you hope to change the world when you cannot even change yourself? You still seek the power for yourself, you are no different than the fools that seek glory for himself and yes history is full of fools like you.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

America has changed when politcal parties have died...

The federalist Party was too close to the Monarchy and "men of wealth" so it was killed off, the GOP has become that now: from wiki

"The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, an effective banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49] Both parties had newspapers favoring them, with the Federalist paper being the Gazette of the United States and the Democratic-Republican paper being the National Gazette.

The Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), marked the end of the First Party System. The elitism of the Federalists had diminished their appeal, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 verged on secession and was a devastating blow when the war ended well. The Era of Good Feelings under President James Monroe (1816–24) marked a brief period in which partisanship was minimal.[50] These good feelings inspired the first short-lived "era of internal improvements" from the 18th through the 25th Congress, which ended with the panic of 1837.[51]"

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

I rest my case

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Defeated are you? Don't feel bad killing the GOP has always been the only way to "win" this thing. It's good to know that just a little actual history and you learned that killing a politcal party is possible and that is how change is accomplished, good for you.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

you are thicker than I thought - that was not the history I was hoping you might read - read about the fight for the 40 hour work week - the fight to end slavery and gain civil rights. when I said I rest my case it was because you put up such a stupid history in response to my comment that you made my point - now you are doing it again

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Yeah you want to ingore the history that polical parties can really be killed you want people to feel defeated to think they are powerless, you want the 1% to keep running things that's why you support people like Nader because they help your buddy Bush win.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

only a politcal hack like yourself would think yet another party is what is needed, What is needed is to kill one not build one!

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

well I am sorry to say we disagree - killing the gop is not the answer. if you want to say rebuilding the democratic party to make it democratic then I am with you but take a look at the funding and good luck with that one.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Why do you believe killing the GOP is not the answer? What would not be made better by this one simple act?

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

First you have to realize you do not make the rules when it comes to the DNC and the RNC, they do.

They own the courts too.

Through the media, they control the primaries and the top spots. The rest of the crap trickles down.

Only a movement of people that is free from their long long life of corruption will lead to real, meaningful change.

To think the empire will allow open intruders and infiltrators is absolutely ridiculous. They do not care about your rights, your say or your democratic values, as the proof is shown all around.

Instead of trying to reverse 100 years of corruption, why not start fresh? Its much much easier, and will lead to real change. Joining the mob to try to make them nice guys is a fools plan.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

You could attempt to answer the question but you have no answer, the GOP must be removed from power if you wish to have any hope of slowing the pace of growth of wealth inequality, if you can't see that you are blind as a bat, all the rest is crap indeed if the GOP are writing the rules.

If your plan depends on chaging ithe nature of people it will fail, if it depends on truth you have a chance the truth is the rich are too damn rich and GOP will make them more so

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

How do you explain Dems running 2 outta 3 houses and Wall St having unlimited bailouts and a record stock market?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

So your point is that the it would be better if the GOP ran all three?

Go ahead and explain why we should not do all we can to remove the GOP from power.

[+] -4 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

At what point is enough enough for you?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Oh I am way past enough of the GOP the question is when will you have enough?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I support starting fresh if we can minimize the misery/death it entails.

Haven't seen a "starting fresh" plan that wouldn't hurt the poor.

But since "Starting fresh" would create untold misery/death amongst the poorest people, I prefer the better option of reform in order so that we minimize the misery/death.

Here is one current effort that can start the work of creating equal/fair access for 3rd parties.

http://action.endthemoneychase.com/site/MessageViewer?pw_id=1941&dlv_id=22161&s_AffiliateSecCatId=1&em_id=18081.0

Fight for this then demand more.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

it would allow the dems to move further to the right - you refuse to see the one fundamental fact - the democratic party is a free market corporate capitalist party - the people they serve are the .01%

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

You will grasp at any straw to keep the GOP in power won't you?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

That is your response? Very weak

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Do you feel the GOP has moved to left as the Tea Party works within their primaries?

I honestly don't know is it that you don't see the evil that is the GOP or is that you are cashing their paychecks?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

how about this - yes the gop is evil - especially today - but eisenhower was to the left of obama by a good margin so things change. if he were running in 2016 he would win in a landslide. and yes the gop is trying to beat back the monster (that would be the tea party of dick army and the koch bros) that they created since most of their funders do not want the country to fall apart. part of what i wrote to shadz - would you care to respond to these FACTS..... after all nader has done this is the one thing they beat him up about. in addition to what you said about gore there is this - he was a straight forward extension of slick willie. that would be the guy who said he would help the poor and middle class and then did just the opposite - sound familiar? clinton ended welfare as we know it - raised taxes on the middle class - destroyed yugoslavia - bombed the world - took credit for 500,000 children shitting themselves to death in iraq - and drove brooksley born out of government and ended glass steagel - should i go on??

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

So your solution to "the gop is evil" is to help elect more of them? I think that is a bad plan.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

You think it is a bad plan?? Thinking is not what you are doing. You do what a parrott does . You have learned a few phrases and use them to amuse your masters .

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

What would you know of thinking? In any case your plan to elect more GOP is a bad one.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

so pointing out the truth of obama or the democratic party is not a good thing. seems that is what you are saying. can you respond to any of teh facts i mentioned? no? parrot

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Can you explain why you work so hard to help elect the GOP? I have no problem with people entering the primaries to push the Dems left, but to consistently deride their efforts while never discussing the very real danger of the GOP is tantamount to treason in my opinion. You attack the Dems for the purpose of building your own political force or at least to support the one you prefer, it is not in order to improve policy, you sacrifice the present for your idealized future where your party rules, a typical political hack dream. Just as those that supported and voted for the blind as bat or dumb as dirt Nader, who could not find a difference between Bush or Gore.

[-] -2 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

You really need to open your eyes a bit more, the problems are deeper than what the dumb letter at the end of some politicians name is.

If you think the Dems are the answer, then get your but down to:

2910 North Central Ave · Phoenix, AZ 85012

And start putting in some work.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

your work to elect the GOP seems to be working...

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/?smid=tw-upshotnyt

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i try to tell the truth - and you? you bend the truth to suit your goals or would you rather i say - you tell partial truths. you rarely disputes the facts. a sad comment on the youth of today

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Your attempts at truth telling are failing but keep trying, now here's some full on truth you spend your days attacking the only people positioned to keep the GOP from gaining even more power, your efforts help the GOP gain power and when the GOP gain power the 1% are also more powerful, that's pure TRUTH keep trying you may learn how to tell the truth someday

[-] 3 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Wow an actual thread/comment of substance.

Good job.

Personally I think a 3rd party is on the way (tea party split) & would be great for the country.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/02/tea_party_should_divorce_the_republicans_why_america_needs_more_political_parties/

THAT is a 3rd party I could support (but not vote for)

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

as i said before you are a one trick pony - anything attacking the dems is a gift to the gop - that seems to be your only thought. i understand the point but disagree with it. you assume that people are so stupid that they cannot understand the truth and behave rationally. i can only assume it is projection on your part. i believe people can understand that the dems are funded and controlled by the "power elite" and still vote for them when they are the lesser of two evils - which they often are. ok, so we disagree on that but can you stop your silliness - you will not get me to agree with your premise. again i remind you that your protection team seems to be somewhere else - maybe at the headquarters of the dnc!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

So you say my "...comment brought to my attention" huh?

That's funny.

Who cares what Chomsky thinks or says.? I love him. I still make my own decisions based on the issues.

You should try it.

no partisanship, substantive issue debate!!

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

My position on the military issues you brought up are as such. I support cutting the defense budget, including eliminating all nuclear weapons & rarely using military force. I support diplomacy at all costs, but would support force to protect the innocent if majority of other countries agree and take part.

Some groups I support w/ valuable info:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/issues/

http://blog.livableworld.org/tag/Iran

http://blog.livableworld.org/tag/Congress

www.northjersey.com/news/how-much-credit-should-the-occupy-movement-get-1.1005834

http://livableworld.org/elections/2014/senate_election_center/

I know, although both parties are under the pressure of the MIC, one has pushed invading Syria, Nigeria, Syria, and even Ukraine, One supports cutting the defense budget the other does not.

I think on every issue there are real significant differences (as your dropped name (chomsky) stated in the piece I posted).

Appointments are less important than policies and in regards to economic issues one party Is definitely better. Min wage, taxhikes n 1%, job creation, are good start in that analysis

Neither are good enough but one is better. We must pressure the one that is closest to our opinion until in fact they adopt our agenda.

You must put your big boy pants on and figure out for yourself. I don't tell people who to vote for or not vote for. But the dishonest sameparties distraction debate is meaningless.

Debate the issues. not the parties.

Protest, VOTE!!! then protest again

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

first of all i don't wear pants - of any type. secondly if you want to debate straw men do it with someone else. I did not say they are the same - i put noam's (very brief) analysis up so you could see how he answers that point. respond to it if you can. two wings of the same capitalist loving, free market business party. you do know what emma goldman said about voting don't you? voting hasn't changed anything - organizing and pressure has. one party is better but not much. I can go on as to why I feel that way but I do not see the point. I have been hearing that line about the dems for almost 50 years - wasn't true then - isn't true now.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

Great, Organize, pressure, protest, & VOTE!!!!

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/travel/blogs/180596981.html

Are you arguing NOT voting?

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

what I am saying is that too often voting is not the answer. especially when both parties that have any real chance of winning are funded by the same .1% of the population. yes there are differences between the two capitalist parties but not enough to make real change and that is what we need. the supreme court is probably the biggest difference but gay marriage and the right to choose are reason to vote democratic. but let's not be fooled - both parties work for the .1% - both parties believe that we have the right to bomb the world - both parties want to burn our remaining fossil fuels as fast as we can - both parties funnel money to the wealthiest segments of the population and leave crumbs for the rest - both parties are heading us towards the cliff - one wants to run and the other wants to walk - quickly! neither party believes in any real democracy - they both want to keep "the bewildered herd" in the dark. clear enough for you?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 6 years ago

I think what you describe is why we and so many other like minded organizations and people have joined the decades old fight to wrest control of the peoples govt from corp oligrachs.

You too right?

"Protest, Vote, then protest again!"

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

mostly shorts - I teach tennis for a living???? also a browns fan - saw jim brown play in the old stadium in 1964!

[-] -2 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

If you're referring to the After Party, it will just be another Occupy clique. That's the problem. Sometimes these things look like a good idea but implementing a functioning party is impossible for a leaderless group and one who omits the uncool (read: adult) as a downer. Let's face it, we don't all go to Barney's. I'm glad some of you have the money to party (no pun intended) but I'm not donating to support a habit or the select within the group. Likewise there are no parties worth taking seriously much less contributing time or money to.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Many here hope to steal the energy created by OWS to divert young people into the Green Party where they can be used to inflate the egos of idiots like Nader.

As far as actual benefit that could and can be obtain from that energy is to spread the word that the rich are too damn rich and the GOP wants to make them richer (at the same time that they make money all powerful) therefore the GOP must go by whatever means available.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

Many seem to want to divert people to Ron Paul and Gay Johnson, stealing votes from the GOP. Would you support that?

FYI In case you havent noticed the administration is doing perpetual bailouts, war (the real story behind this Berghdal situation- WE ARE NEVER LEAVING, and Wall St is at record highs, as in never higher).

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I support telling people the truth, Ron Paul believes money should rule without limit and Gary Johnson should spend his time actually trying to defeat Republicans on election day and informing America about wealth inequality in between.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

Johnson "stole" -according to Republicans who think as you do- over 1.2 million votes from Romeny, and in the minds of the believers, ultimately helped Barack Obomber.

I would think you would be very happy with that. If Americans "stealing" votes from the politicians you seem to identify with angers you so much, then doing that to your "enemies" must make you giddy with happiness.

No?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Really? I saw Johson in the people's debate or whatever they called it, and would be very surprised if Johnson supporters came from the Romney camp.

It's really not the point, the point is that the GOP is pure evil and defeating them at the polls is the most important thing any American can do, of course there are other things that need to be done, but anything that interfers with defeating Republicans on election day is posin to the world and people who support such actions should be called out for the harm they cause at every chance.

[-] -3 points by turbocharger (1756) 6 years ago

Your hate of Republicans has made you blind to your partners in crime- Democrats- and you are therefore complicit in what they are doing (along with Republicans). Imo they are not passing these strange and dangerous laws because they don't plan on using them. And when they do, D and R will unite as they do with any war. This is not my opinion, this is history.

At some point all of you Republican and Democrat supporters are simply going to be labeled as "loyalists" to the regime, and will be treated as such by your community.

Its coming whether you want it to or not. So you need to make a distinction- are you with the people or the elites?

Trying to infiltrate the mob and make them good people is a ridiculous strategy.

PS- thats basically the strategy the system puts out- Join us and you can make a difference. YOU can be the one to change the mob.

Theres a lot of older people who have been caught hook, line and sinker by this system, this believe about the elections, land of the free, etc etc etc. Information age is changing that, and the spread of new and real ideas is what is going to make a difference, if enough people get behind them.

It takes numbers. So would you like us all to join YOU and the strategy that the elites have set up and controlled everything very well for 100 years, or would YOU like to join US instead?

(Because clearly the mob would let you change them. Its not like they control the courts and the electoral processes or anything..... )

IF you truly believe in electoral politics, there is no quicker nor easier way to affect change than to start your own thing. If you think you cannot compete without D/R money you are wrong. If you think people will not vote for you, you are wrong. If you think that people do not want something different, you are wrong.

It all depends on how much effort you are willing to put in. If you simply want to go to the polls once every two years and pull the lever for people whom the machine created, you can do that. Just dont expect anything different. If you truly believe in the system and the ability to change it, and that is a priority in your life, then creating your own local grassroots strategy is the way to go, as it is going to yield more results.

Its more work, clearly. But its going to yield your community the results, and others will join in. Dont assume because you are the only one standing that it doesnt mean others wont stand with you.

Like I said, its all about priorities. If you want to take the easy way out, and go to Dem rallies and register Dem voters and create another 08, you are going to get another 08.

Living in AZ, you have very little ability to affect change in other states.

People must start somewhere, but before that the decision to start must be made. AS of right now, we have not made that decision as a nation. As a series of small communities, we are getting closer. If that were to go through, then we would be onto something. But its not quite there yet.

Do you want to lead or follow?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I am not blind to the policies enacted by the GOP nor the method to remove them from power, you seek only to inflate your own ego. (or protect the GOP, either way your actions protect them)

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 6 years ago

yeah well ... ZD... that is because you are a realist... trying to do something that makes a change in the Real Now world... right Now... not someone wasting time ... trying to change the world with some glamorous sweep of some monumental god level change that will never happen

[+] -5 points by factsrfun (8260) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Some here like flip and shadz seek to gain power from the chaos others are seeking movement forward to a more equal and sustainable world, flip and shadz see every outrage as an oppertunity to expand their power base those that allow this scum to florish are killing the sprite and promise of OWS.

We have an oppertunity to change the world by simply speaking truth and truth is powerful people heard us loud and clear when we shouted

The Rich are TOO damn RICH!!

If we get back to that and ask of every policy how does it make the rich, richer or money more powerful? and work like hell to kick anybody that supports such policies from office doing that means far more than building some new polical system on the head of a pin, or in your mind.