Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Don't Vote for any Democrats and Republicans!

Posted 6 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 3:12 p.m. EST by redavocet (38)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please, please do not vote for any of the Democrats or the Republicans! If you are on this site you understand they are really just one party owned by corporations! We must vote third party and send a message by voting all the corrupt bums out! If that doesn't work maybe the guillotine will work!



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Fallschirmjaager (5) from North Bethesda, MD 6 years ago

MikeBert, you obviously know enough about history to know that voting for Democrats is at least as bad an idea as voting for Republicans, if not more. Our only hope as Americans lies in proliferating the idea that there are more than two parties and that "a vote for Nader" is NOT "a vote for Bush." (An example, I do not specifically endorse Nader but his situation formed the now famous quote.)

The police response to the Occupy movement is possible only because of Democratic pushes to increase police power nationwide. The only things Democrats will tolerate the "legalization" of are gay marriage and marijuana. Both are of course laudable efforts, and I do emphatically support the "legalization" of both, however they should never have been illegal in the first place and the reason they were can be directly tied to the Democratic party's idea that power should rest in the hands of the federal government. Every time you vote for someone who wants to pass environmentally minded restrictions on the types of cars you can buy, every time you vote for someone who wants stricter speed enforcement on the roads, every time you vote for someone who supports "zero tolerance" for ANYTHING, who wants to restrict firearms ownership, who wants stricter rules about what can and can not be done in schools, in school zones, in federal buildings, public parks, nature preserves, any time you vote for a candidate who wants to create yet more new laws to protect us from ourselves, you give the police the power to beat you and mace you and arrest you for disagreeing with the Republicans. Democrats are their own worst enemies because they don't understand this.

Amendments that politicians associated with the current Republican party have tried or would likely try to curtail or restrict in one form or another:

1st 3rd 5th 8th

Amendments that politicians associated with the current Democratic party have tried or would likely try to curtail or restrict in one form or another: 2nd 4th 6th 8th 9th 10th

I think that says a lot in and of itself. Democrats, Republicans, they're all wrong. They're all criminals, determined to secure as much power for themselves as possible one way or another. Term limits, a re-visitation of the Slaughterhouse Cases with brand new jurisprudence (i.e. if McDonald v. Chicago had been won on P or I and not on Due Process) and most importantly a nationwide push to educate people that there are more parties out there than the two that have been raping us for the past century, that is what is required to bring America back to what it was originally supposed to be.

Don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Vote for good.

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Well put paratrooper!

[-] 2 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Colorado Springs, CO 6 years ago

Indeed. I will see what I can do for my part.

Edit: there is something I/we can do. Instead of following the candidates endorsed and monied by either party/interests, look into different venues of campaigning this year. For example, look into www.OccupyGovernment.org. This aims to provide free, nonpartisan hubs for anyone to run. Find sites like this and share them, pick your candidates from here, and establish a new mode of campaigning that measurably removes money from politics.

[-] 2 points by flamingliberal (138) 6 years ago

We need 2 send our won people 2 the senate. People that will not sell legislation. For the people by the people.

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 6 years ago

The problem is, who's going to fund our people? How will they stand a chance against the millions of dollars corporations pour into politics?

[-] 1 points by flamingliberal (138) 6 years ago

if we know who our person is we just go out and vote for them. They dont have to buy our vote.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 6 years ago

They are all the same. I am voting AGAINST ALL incumbents and changing my party - not a Dem or a Repug. . .

[-] 1 points by mcdynamite (-1) 6 years ago

There is ONE exception. You need to read this!!!!


AB SMITH: With him, I could send millions to his pocket, and if he intended to vote against my wishes, that money wouldn’t matter… he would still vote against my wishes. He’s a big problem if he ever made it into office.. thank God it looks like he won’t… not because I don’t like the man as an American.. it’s just that he would make my job hard.[Emphasis Mine]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Nader gave us the Iraq war -
Just think of the fun America will have if you vote for another third party!
You gotta believe –
the only ones whoe don’t want you to vote Democratic-
the tea potty !
@--> A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
In another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”;
@--> In 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”
@--> Other issues of Paul’s newsletter called Barbara Jordan, the African-American Texas congresswoman, a “half-educated victimologist” and said of crime in Washington, D.C., “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
@--> ”If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992
@--> Paul’s newsletter was listed by a neo-Nazi group called Heritage Front, as recommended reading
The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that “those who don’t commit sodomy, who don’t get blood a transfusion, and who don’t swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.”
@--> In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author--writing in the first person--states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

[-] 1 points by Fedup15 (30) 6 years ago

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Thisnis what we have today

[-] 1 points by BrighterFuture (13) 6 years ago

William Kunstler would've made an awesome president. He spent his ENTIRE life fighting for the poor, disenfranchised, people of color, African-Americans, undocumented workers, Muslims, Native Americans, & the LGBTT community. He was a hero. He fought American imperialism & institutionalized racism. He fought racial profiling. Our protests are the GREATEST testament & homage to William Kunstler's struggle.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Now we are lucky to have
Elizabeth Warren Bernie Sanders Dennis Kucinich Russ Feingold

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 6 years ago

What we really need is an end to the huge handicap that all third parties in the U.S. face, which is the plurality voting system (aka first-past-the-post). It simply does not scale up very well to handle more than two large parties, being subject to the spoiler effect that we saw with Dubya/Gore/Nader and to a lesser extent with Clinton/Bush/Perot, and it is an out-dated relic from the past (we inherited it from the British).

For single-seat elections, I think we should replace it with Instant Runoff Voting, and for the legislature, I think we should use Proportional Representation (specifically the Single Transferable Vote, which emphasize candidates over parties).

Otherwise, we are left with two parties who merely have to be "less bad" than the other party and who often collude on issues like campaign finance and corporate personhood. Real change requires voter reform.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

First things first- Do you agree with the 83% ?
Are you ready
.....................FOR ACTION ?
Are you ready to
.....................DO SOMETHING REAL ?
Are you ready to
......................join 83% ........ of Americans ?

We must not
DEMAND that we WANT THEM.to give to US
We must

Because of the Supreme Court's decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant, without FIRST -
Overturning Citizens United !!!
Ending Corporate Personhood !!!

83% of Americans already agree on it
as stated in the ABC/Washington Post poll


In the the PFAW Poll -

85% of voters say that corporations have too much influence over the political system today.
77% think Congress should support an amendment to limit the amount corporations can spend on elections.
74% say that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who pledged to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting corporate spending in elections.


Our only immediate goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decision Citizens United (2010) , that enables unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons &
have no personhood rights”

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)

If they could tie the left and right into a success - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
Simple is almost always better.
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process. 5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one task the MAJORITY.

Join the OWS Restore Democracy Working Group at
regular meetings 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium @ Wednesdays
Plan details with supporting documentation at:.... http://bit.ly/vK2pGI



Whereas --

The OWS Declaration of the Occupation of New York City states that
"a democratic government derives its just power from the people,
not from corporations."

and --

the ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 83% of the entire US population
opposes the Supreme Court Citizens United decision,
which affirmed that corporations are people.

and --

by supporting the overturning of corporate personhood,
OWS clearly aligns itself with the vast majority of the American people
who support ending the fundamentally flawed and anti-democratic concept
that corporations are people.

therefore --

We support a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Proportional is the way to go - I agree

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 6 years ago

You must really think we are stupid. They are not one party. They are two different parties, with hundreds of different people, and so nearly as many different opinions.

I won't vote for any repelicans. That isn't happenin'. That's just me. They stand as a block, with enforced party discipline, cause the economy to stall as they engage in brinkmanship over the debt issue, and they are toast.

Repelicans are done. History. They just don't know it yet.

As for the rest, do as you please.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Ask everyone on this forum if the parties are distinct. Most will say they are corporate controlled sell outs, and one and the same. The Democratic Party especially so since Clinton. Don't take my word for it - read Chomsky, Hedges, Zinn, Albert, Roy, I could go on.....

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 6 years ago

Ask everyone on this forum if the parties are distinct.

maybe you haven't been paying attention. I don't just regurgitate the populist ideology - I tend to think for myself.

Thanks tho.

Chomskys' an idealist. I'm a pragmatist. I'm also a prick. Don't pester me.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

You're right about Chomsky and yourself!

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 6 years ago


  • yeah
[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 6 years ago

Why not vote for all of them? You read me, vote for all of them. Change the constitution to implement a plural executive. What is that? Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70. Voting for all is like voting for none. Put all major parties in the WH: one Dem, one Rep and one Independent et al. Or would you prefer to continue whining about which candidate will make the best President?

[-] 1 points by Fallschirmjaager (5) from North Bethesda, MD 6 years ago

That's what the legislative branch is supposed to accomplish. The Executive branch is headed by a specific party for a reason. Checks and balances should come from the other two branches, not from within each branch, at that rate nothing would get done. If you don't see this line of reasoning, look at Congress today.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 6 years ago

Yes, I am much aware of all you write yet something seems to be amiss, so say the polls.. However, I fail to see a significant difference between the numbers 1 and 3, for example. That is, what's the difference between Obama, as 1, and a plural executive of Obama, Romney and Paul, as 3, for example. Obama and Romney stalemate, Paul settles. In short, just as with 1, there is no stalemate, no impasse. But with 3, not only do the people have better representation, there is greater wisdom in 3 than 1. Why are there 9 justices? A plural executive will mitigate or end such tactics, for example, as LBJ's "Treatment", a one on one bullying session. Finally, the plural executive will at least shrink one hemorrhoid: the endless finger pointing, which will force Americans to shift their thoughts from ad hominem to ideas. There must be some merit in the notion for why would Hamilton devote time and energy to denounce it.

As for the Congress debacle, end it and supplant it with direct online Democracy implemented with dedicated computers on an highly secure, closed intranet. By direct computers, I mean computers with no ability to download (thus no virus, no hacking) and DNA validation devices (finger input ports), for example. These computers would also have access to a national database of government statistics as well as the necessary bill documentation and support so that voters could be more informed in preparation of their votes. No, I do not have all the answers but I believe more in technology and the American people than I trust the elitism of Washington. Representation restrained by the pony express has run its statue of logic--we have digital, use it. To this end, we need more engineers and computer scientists, less political pundits and lobbyists, both of the latter at the cesspool level.

If I was a unitary President, I was say to you now on this subject: "Your interest has been studied, but, as our solitary President, my word is now final." Not so with a plural executive.

There has to be a better way than merely substituting one puppet with another and hoping for a different outcome. We must end Washington's ruse of convincing this very absurdity on the American people.

Incidentally, excuse the insufficient link, although I'm sure you would have found it on your own. The brief Wikipedia article on Federalist Paper #70 is here:

Federalist No. 70 (Federalist Number 70) is an essay by Alexander Hamilton and the seventieth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on March 15, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. Its title is, "The Executive Department Further Considered", and it is the fourth in a series of 11 essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Executive branch. The essay deals with the question of a plural executive. Hamilton argues that a plural executive, having more than one president, "tends to conceal faults, and destroy responsibility", and states that a singular president would better be suited to wield the full potential of his power in a quick and efficient way, without falling into endless squabbling and dispute with other executives with the same power. He also warns that when dealing with more than one leader, "there is always difference of opinion". A strong and energetic executive branch requires unity, duration in office, adequate resources, and sufficient powers.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

I say vote 'None of the Above' or a 99% Party candidate. Othewise I will vote Green Party

[-] 1 points by LeroyLinux (10) 6 years ago

If we don't vote for anyone, Wall Street will simply install more puppets and take more control. Also, tea partiers will vote in another round of nuts who will insist on no taxes for the rich and cuts of programs for the poor.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

So who do you vote for? Democrats again? Yeah they'll really represent the 99% They are selling out the country same as the Republicans, why? Because they are beholden to corporations! Corporate lobbying has bought both parties so why vote for them?

[-] 1 points by wewontgetfooledagain (23) 6 years ago

Until (corporate) lobbying is outlawed I don't think there is much anyone can do to change and make things better for the 99%. However I will never vote for a Republican again because years ago I learned that their core values strongly favor and they have ties to big corporations and the 1%, oil, pharma, wars/defense contractors, give tax breaks to the rich, kill the economy, etc. Most every law they pass helps the rich and hurts the middle and lower class. Bush cost us over $1 TRILLION on foreign wars alone. So I think the best we can do for now at the polls is vote for a Democrat. Other parties don't stand a chance at this time since they get a very small % of votes however if OWS wants to endorse someone then make it official. In 2004-2008, John Edwards was the only major candidate I recall talking about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA. However if he were elected I doubt he could have done much without outlawing powerful corporate lobbying first because they have too much influence/control over lawmakers. No matter who gets elected there will not be enough change for the 99% without first outlawing/eliminating corporate lobbying/influence. If you don't vote for someone with a chance of winning, it will make it easier for a Republican to win and then we the people (the 99%) will get further screwed for another 4-8 years. The mess Bush alone made will take more than 4 years to clean up.






Also Google "corporate campaign contributions."

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

So continue to vote for the Democrats and hope for the best? No way, they are sell outs and nothing will change with your attitude! That is what Democrats are counting on too. Keep the word out that if you vote 3rd party you are throwing your vote away. Can't you see the current President is no different from Bush? I mean overall there is not much difference! If we are down to choosing between two candidates from the same corporate dominated parties - this country will never get better, but will continue its current slide into destruction. The working class have been screwed by the Democratic Party for too long. It is now time to abandon them en mass!

[-] 1 points by CanEd (78) from Edmonton, AB 6 years ago

Voting for a third party is only "Throwing out your vote" if everyone votes strategically. If people voted for what they actually believed instead of voting for the closest match out of the two parties that can actually win, those two parties wouldn't be the only ones that could actually win.

[-] 1 points by ReubenBaron (47) from New York, NY 6 years ago

let them eat cake!

[-] 1 points by ReubenBaron (47) from New York, NY 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by mikebert (5) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 6 years ago

I strongly disagree with this idea. Going the 3rd party route pretty much will result in failure, as it did for the Socialists, Progressives, Populists, Greenbackers and all the many third parties of late 19th and early 20th century.

The two parties are not identical in their allegiance to the 1%. The GOP is more strongly aligned with the corporate elite than Democrats, if only because Labor still represents a piece of the Democratic party.

What is needed is for the Republicans to be utterly defeated electorally. This would likely result in a radical restructuring of the GOP sort of like what happened to the Whigs after 1854.

I submit that the Tea Party is playing the role of the Know Nothings in 1854. If faced with a devastating rejection of of their current political offerings, the Republican leadership will recalibrate their approach, reducing the emphasis on immigration in favor of increased patriotism, just as the Whigs reformulated the Know Nothings into a nationalist rather than anti-Catholic nativist party. The Religious Right will exit the political scene after becoming disgusted once again with politics just as they did in the 1930's. These developments will allow the business wing of the GOP to reassert dominance, which will likely bring back disaffected moderate Republicans (i.e. neoliberals and Blue Dog Democrats) creating a unified pro-business center-right party that will very directly represent the interests of the 1%.

In the midst of this flux it will now be possible for progressives to gain increased influence in the Democratic party. The Overton window will shift left. In such an environment groups like OWS can inject necessary memes into the political discussion to help drive policy debates in a direction closer to something that might actually help the 99%. Acitivism to bring more of the disaffected 99% into the new Democratic party (now partially shorn of its Republicans, who have returned home) while could make the Democrats a more progressive party.

Right now such injection is premature since conservatives control the official political discourse. What would help is injection of useful memes into the public discussion amongst ordinary people to build familiarity for certain notions that simply are not discussed at all nowadays.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 6 years ago

Just vote for the green party you party pooper. pun intended

[-] 2 points by me2 (534) 6 years ago

I "throw away my vote" every election. Last time I decided not to, was when I voted for Obama. Seeing as how that worked out, I'll be going back to non-mainstream voting next cycle.

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

So you believe the Democratic Party can be brought back to the people? I disagree, they have become completely indebted and controlled by corporate America, especially since the Clinton years. You have the same mentally that Clinton did - workers have no where else to go so they will vote for us, but lets accept corporate money too. Read some of Chris Hedges work, he highlights this very well. The Democratic Party is a wolf in sheeps clothing , just like Obama. You are following a mirage if you trust they'll ever be true to workers!

[-] 2 points by mikebert (5) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 6 years ago

This is nonsense. Politicians are self-interested independent actors, not agents for someone else. Politicians have way too much testosterone to be willing to be someone else's slave. They are in it for themselves.

Consider how many of the German corporate elite during the Weimar republic were Jewish. How did they fare when that corporatist shill Adolf Hitler come to power? (German industrialists supported Hitler because they believed he was on their side)). Actually like all politicians Hitler was on his own side.

The look at the 1932 election in America. Two corporatist politicians. FDR and Hoover vying for the presidency. FDR won. Now FDR won because Hoover didn't do anything to stop or even slow the Depression. The result was Hoover lost and his party was destroyed. Now FDR could have decided to follow the will of the 1% and also do nothing and he and his party would get shellacked in 1934. Instead FDR decided he would go Free Silver and stopped the Depression with an executive order in his first month of office. The result was immediate, the economy stopped contracting in that month and FDR and the Democrats reaped an enormous electoral bounty.

Now Obama saw how Bush was destroyed by his mishandling of wars he started. Obama decided to no mishandle his wars, and get Bin Laden to boot. Obama would like to have handled the economic problem better because his party got shellacked in 2010 and he may well lose in 2012--which is not very much to his liking.

But there was nothing in the conventional wisdom that would work. What was needed was unconventional wisdom, but using this requires an external movement to supply it. FDR was able to use a Populist meme (free silver) to ensure his own re-election. Obama likely would have been willing to considering using an analogous meme popularized by an OWS-like movement that sprung up right after the 2000 election. No such movement materialized and so no such meme was available and Obama was doomed to failure.

Do you remember the campaign slogan. WE are the change we are looking for. Yes its just a slogan, but there was an underlying meaning. Unless the people organize and inject useful memes that do not reflect conventional wisdom into the political discourse no useful policy can ever be formulated and our problems will become permanent.

So now we come to OWS. It's a decade later than was scheduled, (and I was beginning to lose hope) but here you are!

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Politicians are 'self interested, independent actors'! Are you really serious! Are you living in the U.S.? You are either completely naive or being outright devious to state such a thing today. The only person that isn't bought outright is probably Bernie Sanders who is an independent. Look at everyone's net worth when they enter congress and when they leave - they all leave with tremendous increases in wealth. How so? They are bought out! Obama had an entire Congress of Democrats when he went in office and a huge mandate from the people and look what he did - put on Bush's suit and continue the same. How dare you mention FDR's accomplishments in comparison to Obama's! What a joke! The Democratic presidents have all chipped away FDR's policies through the years - look at Clinton with Glass-Steagall. I will never place my hope in that party again.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 6 years ago

It is funny how he thinks politicians are 'self interested, independent actors' but before that he says Republicans are strongly aligned to corporations.

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Are you kidding! Obama got bin Laden - big deal. All his policies are a continuation of Bush's - at least Bush didn't target and then assassinate an American citizen. Obama has continue his predecessor's military policies and is adding troops around the globe, as in Australia. His economic policies are a disgrace too. Do I need to list them! Are you kidding? And since the Citizens United case, corporations will flood the Democratic Party with even more money, or make them chase it since the Republicans will get millions. We need an Occupy/Labor Party that will get the 99% and become a true worker party!

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

Both parties are corporatist!!

[-] 0 points by MaryS (678) 6 years ago

@mikebert Yes, thank you. I totally agree. The obstructionist Republicans are largely responsible for Obama being unable to make progress but I really think if given a chance he would make many changes. I do think we need a third party, though, to break the stalemate.

[-] 2 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

Have you forgotten when Obama first got in - he had both houses of Congress. He had a huge mandate from the people for change. What did he do? Nothing! He continued Bush's policies! Don't just blame the Republicans - the Democrats are the same, bought by corporations!



[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 6 years ago

Massive occupations when voting begins. No vote - revolt!

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

I agree voting is a waste now, people on this forum still think the Democratic Party is going to listen - they are crazy! I say revolution now!

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 6 years ago

We still do not have enough of the brainwashed 99% behind OWS ... need to get out with facts to educate them now

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 6 years ago

massive occupations at the voting booths where the still brainwashed 99% are voting ...?

[-] 0 points by OccupyNot (23) 6 years ago

Once again, another OWS dope shows his IQ.

[-] 1 points by redavocet (38) 6 years ago

The only dope is you! You probably voted for Obama because he was going to change America. Why don't you read a couple books - start with Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions and then Chris Hedges Death of the Liberal Class. Open you eyes and stop being a sheep!