Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do you really want to risk not voting in 2012? "I" think OWS should come to consensus.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 3:52 p.m. EST by Infowar (295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Think about it everyone voting except YOU.

51 Comments

51 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

look at what the tea party did in 2010. if you don't vote, don't complain.

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

Honestly, I disagree completely with the whole "Don't vote!" thing; that may work in other countries because they have a "no confidence" option but in America we want as many of us (and our friends, family, affiliates, etc.) at the polls as possible. Incidentally, there is empirical proof that not voting not only fails to help but can actually hurt. Between a third and half of the country already does this, be it out of apathy or an impulse to boycott, every presidential election cycle and the numbers are even more miserable on midterm years. Look where it got us. When people fail to vote it's almost always the poor and the working class who don't vote, and that tends to have nasty consequences for our social safety net, corporate regulations, etc. I've actually written a paper on it; if you want more information just go here: http://ge.tt/8j7Yuz9

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

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

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

it's a "have-to" if OWS wants anything changed. That's where a revolution may take place. A revolution in the streets will be kiboshed by the military and the elites. It is not hopeless if enough people get organized to do so. In my state we have unseated a US senator and congressman in the last 2-3 years because enough people are upset.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Erm. What did it do? Besides get candidates in office? I think you're confusing the process with the goal. Getting candidates in office isn't any good unless they actually do something, achieve something.

So what has the Tea Party achieved? Anything?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

unfortunately the so-called tea party candidates have had less of an effect than i would have liked and some of them abandoned the tea party as soon as in office. But if OWS sent a bunch of them packing in 2012, they might start getting the message.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

Less of an effect? They did absolutely nothing. The self professed tea party candidates voted for the renewal of the patriot act at a higher rate than the rest of the GOP.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

i didnt know that. we'll have to keepa high turnover rate then.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Think about it, everyone voting including you. Expect anything to change?

[-] -3 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Only if Ron.Paul gets elected!

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

True, electing a lunatic would probably result in changes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

psst... we already elected a lunatic 2008

[+] -4 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Ever talk to a far leftie give me, give me,give me, republican, republican, republican, give me, give me,give me, not our fault, not our fault, not our fault, give me, give me,give me. Oh did i mention GIVE ME MORE.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Even if you want Ron Lawl, you should hedge your bet with Hillary Clinton on the democratic side.

[-] -1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Hillary and Obama are almost one and the same.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 2 years ago

Hillary and Obama are absolutely so different, Hillary is more different to Obama than Obama is to the republican party and their close relationship with wall street that actually affects their policy decisions.

Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to be a sock puppet is why George Soros pulled his support of Hillary Clinton and put all of his support behind Barack Obama.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Hillary=Obama-Bush=Cheney=Willy=Corrupted Yes Men

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

We have one who can see..... They Live

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

only people with the critical thinking skills of an ant profess such hopes

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

We must persuade the tea party not to vote!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I thought we already established that you - Infowar - are a liar with no credibility. Shall we review?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthro/#comment-435771

We could start at the beginning -

Who deleted that OP? You? Not that I care, I'm just curious - but I mean hey. If it turns out you deleted your own post - then it can only mean you know you've been caught . . . .

yer goin down, baby . . . .

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

I like how you used a conversation with someone else to say i am an established liar. MORON

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

thanks.

; D

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

What does that first link have to do with me?

[-] -1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

It is deleted i thought it got buried more OWS censoring. AGW is a total fraud.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are either a liar or a fool - I do not care which.

That global warming is real, the consumption of fossil fuel a primary cause, is undeniable.

Permafrost in Alaska isn't perma anymore. The ground shifts when it thaws - and everything in Alaska built upon permafrost is on the move.

Roads, railroad tracks, phone poles, trees, houses - all on the move.

LA smog - car emissions trapped by an inversion layer in the atmosphere and the surrounding topography - that's just one city. Multiply that population by . . . say . . . anywhere from 70 to 700 - and you begin to have a rough idea of the amount of shit we pour into the air on a global basis every single day.

To say AGW is a total fraud is like saying 700 LAs can shit into the air and it will have no effect.

How about if the population of one seventh of LA stops by your house, just to shit on the lawn . . .

will that have no impact on water quality within the water shed where you live?

well . . . yeah

z

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

while insults are fun, it's easier to show the ice cap effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

You do realize that video shows global warming to be a fraud, right?

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

i'm not here to convince you. i present facts. the preservation of your family line depends on how you deal with that data. i have been smoking for 20 years and i'm still alive. cigs must be good for me then?

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Watch the video you posted it is a AGW denier video. I swear i am talking to some retards.

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

well, any point you may have gotten across to me just went out the window. if you care to pick this back up with data, i look forward to it.

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Why because you are a reality denier? That video is plenty of data and it is accurate the ice melts in summer then refreezes in winter. The ice levels are not being depleted the poles are fine, AGW is a fraud.

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

if you look at the first winter season, freeze and look, take a screenshot if you need. then freeze on the last winter season, take another screenshot if you need, you can see with your own eyes a 15% depletion. there are other sources if you care to research and post findings to your liking. secondly, you can look up the average temps by season per year and make comparisons there as well.

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

That's not what i saw or the video depicted or what its author said. Here is part of the video description "Note that despite some mainstream media reports, our Arctic Sea ice has not melted away, but comes back every year as it has done for millennia..This is the normal season cycle."

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

this is true. but the amount of frozen mass that returns during the winter does decrease every year.

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

I think you maybe seeing with your emotion.

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

ah, nice deflection. when you are ready to return to debating, let me know.

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

In case you did not notice i just crossed the finish line and you have not even crossed the starting line.

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

I don't care how you jackasses feel AGW is a fraud, It has been proven and no amount of debate will change that. I bet you think we caused the mid-evil warm period to? It was probably all those sword factory's.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • AGW is a fraud, It has been proven

well yeah it's been proven, by liars and scam artists attempting to shore up the hold the fossil fuel industry has on the entire economy.

You can't run a tank without oil.

You can't run a factory without oil.

Every single bearing in every single conveyor requires lubricant.

The oil industry is a huge series of allied kingdoms intent on maintaining their power. They don't want you to ask if carbon emissions have anything to do with climate.

So you've bought the propaganda. I don't mind. It does make me wonder if I can shit in your living room - maybe someone will convince you it doesn't stink.

[-] -1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Watch that video richardkent posted. All those videos of ice-shelf melt are explained it is called seasons, ever heard of em?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm sorry - I was distracted. I just listened to a reprise on 60 Minutes of Angelina Jolie in her role as Mariane [in the movie A Mighty Heart?] where she screams inconsolably upon learning her husbands head has been found in a ditch.

Upon hearing that scream in the background I threw my keyboard, and now I must replace $12,000 of computer equipment and a 16" tv . . .

What were you saying?

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

lol funny ... We will never reach a consensus on this, you and me. So maybe the best thing i can say is this demonstrates issues in the world and just doing something like stopping the use of fossil fuels would require fascism / totalitarianism. .

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

No, it does not. All it requires are alternatives.

That was one thing among many the repelicans want stripped from the budget - alternative energy subsidies and tax breaks - while doing nothing about tax breaks for oil.

[-] -1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

Yes it would, you know what would happen in the u.s if they stopped subsidizing oil? $9 a gallon maybe more then riots. People in America will not vote for that. You know what a lot of people are demanding though drilling here and it would be more likely to be voted through.

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

no, it was george bush and his fleet of American made gas guzzlers that caused global warming since the dinosaurs all died.

damn that bush

[-] -1 points by tomcat68 (298) 2 years ago

yes. and Dinosaurs died because of climate change from Bushes own private car. the world had never changed until the use of fossil fuels by man. it was always a perfect unchanging utopia.

and my name is Barack Osama.

any other facts we want to throw out?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13432) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Actually dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago because of a meteor that struck near the Yucatan.

About 450 million years ago it was either volcanic eruption or another meteor - I'm partial to the volcanic theory myself.

There have been several major extinction events in the course of history.

We're in one right now.

Of course, you wouldn't notice - just as you haven't noticed growing a single inch since you were ten.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

risk?

[-] -1 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

I am starting to think it will be good for OWSers not to vote. So please don't vote.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Just a guess: You think that because you disagree with the politics of most OWSers and you would prefer they don't vote. Hoping for more Republicans...

[-] 0 points by Infowar (295) 2 years ago

I hate almost all the repugs and demonrats!! I said that because some of the people are very frustrating and maybe if they realize people they disagree with will be voting they will vote.

[Removed]