Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Green party of America

Posted 2 years ago on June 12, 2012, 8:49 a.m. EST by francismjenkins (3713)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Some select position statements from their platform:

Political Participation:

1) To ensure transparency in government, lesser bodies such as neighborhood boards and county governments must have subpoena power over state governments, which, in turn, should have subpoena power over the national Congress.

2) Every jurisdiction should have a civilian complaint review board with subpoena power and the ability to order the dismissal of police officers who make false arrests and abuse those whom they arrest.

3) We call for more flexibility by states for local decision-making. We advocate citizen rights to initiative, referendum and recall in all states. We believe that these tools of democracy should not be for sale to the wealthy who pay for signatures to buy their way onto the ballot. Therefore we call for a certain percentage of signatures gathered to come from volunteer collectors.

4) We call for citizen control of redistricting processes and moving the "backroom" apportionment process into the public light. Give the 10-year redistricting process to the Census Bureau or an independent agency. Minority representation must be protected and secured in order to protect minority rights.

http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/democracy.php#316380

Local Economic Involvement:

Green Solutions

1) Protect local businesses from the predatory pricing practices of chain and "big box" stores.

2) Support incentives for co-operative enterprises, such as consumer co-ops, workers' co-operatives, credit unions and other institutions that help communities develop economic projects.

3) Allow municipalities to approve or disapprove large economic projects case-by-case based on environmental impacts, local ownership, community reinvestment, wage levels, and working conditions.

4) Allow communities to set environmental, consumer, human rights, labor, health and safety standards higher than federal or state minimums.

5) Invest in the commons: rebuild infrastructure; improve mass transit; protect and restore the environment. Support local living wage laws.

http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/economic-justice.php#241820

The Green Party of the United States of America emphasizes environmentalism, non-hierarchical participatory democracy, social justice, respect for diversity, peace and nonviolence. Their "Ten Key Values,"[6] which are described as non-authoritative guiding principles, are as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States

79 Comments

79 Comments


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

I will vote G before R or D, but I believe our problem is structural. Even the Green party can be corrupted when enough money is offered. The problem is the flawed system.

[-] 7 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Well, fair enough I suppose, and for me, my decision to vote Green Party in no way diminishes or weakens my continued support for Occupy Wall Street. I mean, voting is something we do once a year, at most, whereas activism is something we do on an ongoing basis (as our schedule permits). So I don't see any conflict between the two. Moreover, when I read the GP platform, it almost reads like an Occupy Wall Street wish list (and my own personal wish list).

Nevertheless, people are entitled to their opinion, and I understand that many will view this as a wasted vote or whatever, but I disagree with that contention. There may be a few good democrats left, and even a few half way decent republicans (although the latter seems more rare), but the GP platform is my platform, it corresponds with my views in almost every way (there's probably a few points I find debatable, but nothing I find offensive), and so even though the GP may be more of a long shot, I can at least vote for them without losing any sleep :)

[-] 5 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."--George Carlin

[-] 2 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I like george

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

GC was incredible...

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

I don't consider your support (or mine) of the GP a wasted vote. I like their platform because it aligns with my views also. We have to vote our conscience. My point is that they can be corrupted too, where money is allowed to influence. So IMO, it's the system itself that's flawed.

Personally, I would like to see a system where we vote more often and on the issues themselves; rather than voting for a person that we HOPE will represent our views.

Cheers :)

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yes, agreed. I was just reading an Emma Goldman essay (someone I have a great appreciation for), and thinking about how something like a Green Party would square with her philosophy. The GP does not take corporate contributions (only individual donations), and it does call for participatory democracy (which is an anarchist idea); and although, strictly speaking (as a general rule of thumb) anarchism and political parties go together like oil and water, a sequence of actions is necessary to get us from point A to where we want to go.

We of course have to admit that anything, in theory, could be corrupted -- but at the same time, the GP (and similar groups) could form part of the bridge to a new world (although, not the entire bridge).

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

Absolutely anything can be corrupted; but you have to be an optimist and say YES ............... What we do, WILL build the ENTIRE bridge to the new world.

And thanx for mentioning "Red" Emma. I just started reading about her. She seems like a real firecracker with grit in her gut.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I like GP platform as well. But I would lose sleep knowing I am just splitting the progressive vote. I wish the 2 party grip didn't freeze out 3rd party opportunity. It is one of our biggest problem. I hope you aren't in a swing state. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 2 years ago

New parties only have a chance with proportional representation.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Is there a connection with voter apathy and the constant attack on people who 'waste' their vote?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Check out the blackagendareport.com site. It's like Occupy 2.0.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Thanks ... I bookmarked it (good site).

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

agreed

I just haven't seen many green candidates , I saw them in the first marches

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

I mean, voting is something we do once a year, at most, whereas activism is something we do on an ongoing basis (as our schedule permits). So I don't see any conflict between the two.

The conflict does not rest in the rate of activity, but rather in the fact that both activities are diametrically opposed to each other. OWS is against the current political system as it does not believe in it. It is an anti-government and anti-capitalist protest. It demands for a new type of government to be formed. On the other hand, the Green Party accepts the current system and chooses to play within it.

Are you for or against the system? Are you a true anarchist, or some kind of middle-class poser?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Am I a middle class poser?

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

So you were this big anarchist this whole time, and it just occurred to you (3 days ago) to get involved in OWS? Hmmm, me smell troll.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Anarchists don't believe in the system. A lot of times, middle class folks like yourself want to be anarchists, but don't have the guts. While we fight against the government's guard dogs right there in the street, you guys are dreaming about it in your comfortable beds. When you wake up, you find excuses as to why you can't fight. You end up going to vote for the Green Party and thinking it's equal to days and days of protesting. After you vote, you put a smile on your face then head over to the mall to buy Christmas gifts for your daughters. Look outside Macy's window, we're still in the street fighting the government, and, there you are, with your lovely daughters shopping just after you helped the government's system by placing a vote in it.

[Deleted]

[-] -3 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You have guts because you were in the most hierarchical organization in the world (US army), and you fought an illegal war Iraq with the most sophisticated weaponry against peasants with old guns?

The real heroes are the guerrilla fighters all around the world fighting against powerful regimes like the US military. How many men did you kill? How many presidents did you overthrow? How many times did you make Bush smile?

Reading anarchist philosophy does not make you an anarchist, just like reading a book on sailing does not make you a sailor. You have to prove yourself on the ground, not in a voting booth.

If you had guts, you'd organize an anti-military anarchist group in US. You'd talk about how anarchy is diametrically opposed to top-down order giving institutions like the US military. You'd give up your military pension to the poor as a form of protest.

[-] 3 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

@ anarkos-That is just about the most asshole remark I have ever heard anyone say on here and that's saying a lot. You are a dirtbag.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

What do you disagree with?

[-] 3 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I disagree with calling someone's "guts" into question who has served in the military no matter what your line of reasoning.- no one who has served deserves to be talked to that way and who in the hell do you think you are to say such a disrespectful thing. You discredit anything else valuable you MIGHT have had to say.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Someone who decides to participate in an illegal war (Iraq) is just as responsible as the ones who ordered him too. The Nuremberg trials established this.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by shadzhairart (-357) 2 years ago

According to his discussion with jart, he has been with OWS since the beginning, but was using other websites like the reedit channels for anarchists. I heard that's where jart, zoe, and that gnostixie girl hang out too. I don't think many ground protesters and anarchists use this site. Anyways, he told jart he would leave since he found this site too political.

What you're saying is that anyone who joins this website now has only just joined OWS. I don't know how this can be true since most OWS organizers, protesters, etc... never use this site. I just started using it yesterday since a friend of zoe's, mark, told me about it. And, I do agree with anarkos. The discussions on this site don't really represent OWS.

For example, zoe's friend jart is into this type of webiste: http://www.reddit.com/r/tranarchism She almost never posts here I heard.

[-] 0 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You don't get to "decide" which war you'd like to participate in as part of the military.

You always have a choice. It's just that some people refuse to make their own choices. It's easier to follow the herd.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

So you were this big anarchist this whole time, and it just occurred to you (3 days ago) to get involved in OWS? Hmmm, me smell troll.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Too many posts (so I can't respond directly), but this kook isn't an anarchist:

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

Just another douche bag troll.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The internet hasn't been around for 52 years fucktard (at least not a public internet). How do I know all these things, dang evil edumacation.

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

Get out troll.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Lol. The biggest problem anarchists have is they're romantics. They just think it's really cool. A gathering is their love interest so they need to crash it in dramatic fashion.

[-] 0 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

"but this kook isn't an anarchist in the philosophical sense of the world"

That is the funniest thing I have read on the Internet in 52 years of living.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Buddy, I'm 52 years old. I was an anarchist before your learned to burry mines.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Iraq was an illegal war. It was at all times outside of battle conditions.

As much as I was against the war in Iraq, it was voted on by Congress, which does not make it illegal in our system. Vietnam was an illegal war.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

In our system... please. I'm talking about international laws. You think it's OK for US to sidestep the allies and do whatever it wants whenever? Sorry buddy, but we won't build a better world with that type of peasant mentality.

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

I'm too angry to even talk about it. It's like the kind of reasoning that made some hippies spit on returning Vietnam soldiers, and makes the Westboro Baptist Church protest at funerals of military. If you can't see that's disrespectful, I can't help you. Go grow up and then we'll talk.

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You don't think soldiers bear any responsibility for what they have done in Iraq? Sorry, but I don't put medals on someone just because he's a solider. He has the responsibility to choose his wars. If he's defending the nation, then great. If he's part of an illegal war in Iraq, then that's his problem for going there. It's possible to refuse a mission. These guys are killers, don't forget that. When your job is to operate tanks, bazookas, grenades, missiles, then you better choose wisely who you target.

I can understand your comparison to Vietnam veterans, but not to the Westboro Baptist church... that's way far in left field.

[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

It's just twisted to target the individual's motives or worse, the GRIEVING FAMILY of someone who's been to war. Protest the war, fine, I have done the same but don't attack someone who has been there and been through things you probably know nothing about. In your own words, choose wisely who you target.-- there is no reply button on your remark below so I can't answer it. I'll just say that questioning the individual rather than going after the warmongers who created it strikes ME as rather "gutless." The end, I have better things to do now.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

No worries, this guy isn't an anarchist (or even a supporter):

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

Some troll just here to start trouble.

[-] 0 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You think it's twisted to question the motives of someone who CHOSE to go to war? So, someone who chooses to go to war is suddenly immune to all criticism and questioning because choosing to use weapons against other people is somehow beyond reproach?

Sorry, but I don't agree. If you choose to be paid by my tax dollars to go kill people in some other country, then I have the right to criticize and question your motives.

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

Nuremberg was about decision makers, not everyday soldiers who get wrapped into it.

[-] 0 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

The Nuremberg trials established that Nazis who killed under orders were responsible for their actions. If someone decided to go to Iraq, he made that decision and must bear responsibility. You can't just say Bush told me to. We all choose our battles.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Nuremberg pertained to war crimes and atrocities committed during war that were outside of battle conditions. Intentional killing of civilian noncombatants by the Nazis, eventually culminating in the Nazi's 'final solution' of outright genocide.

[-] 0 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Iraq was an illegal war. It was at all times outside of battle conditions.

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

there are no legal wars

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You're part of an anarchic protest and you're asking us to vote. 1 + 1 is not equal to 3.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

anarkos: Joined June 11, 2012

Get out troll.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Oh I see... you must be a martyr or have a martyr complex to be an anarchist according to you... and the ability to morally judge strangers completely helps as well. Lets not forget that conformity is a huge trait. To prove anarchist beliefs one must conform to your definition.

[-] -3 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

No, to be an anarchist one does not have to conform to my definition. One has to conform to the definition of anarchism however. A person who promotes a certain party for the elections is not an anarchist. Anarchists don't believe in the governmental system.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28241) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Anarchy: A Definition

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] -3 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Please, we all know what the definition of anarchy is. This is not grade school. People who promote specific parties to vote for in the elections are not anarchists. Sorry to burst your bubble.

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

confronters can be so arrogant

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I gave more thought to this comment, re-read the GP platform, and they do support participatory (non-hierarchical) democracy. In other words, they support what we support, they're just using a different method to achieve that objective. Will it work? I'm skeptical, but if it does work and participatory democracy is truly implemented, then the people gain control of our society (and we'd think that would, in itself, serve as a check against corruption and insider dealing).

The main reason why I'm skeptical is because taking command of the state has never worked (to the contrary, it's repeatedly failed). Nonetheless, I see distinctions in this case. First of all, it's almost impossible to think that the greens would win some giant landslide political victory where they take command of the state in one shot. More likely, they start winning at the state and local level, we see gradual implementation of participatory democracy, so if the greens ever do become a dominant political force, by the time they get there, we'll already have a participatory democracy.

Anyway, I'm just brain storming out loud (not really sure if I'm right or not, but voting for the greens seems like a low risk proposition) :)

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

I had supported and was going to vote for Natasha Pettigrew (GP-MD) for Senator but she was struck and killed while riding her bike in 2010. She really was coming on strong and to me, her untimely death was suspicious.

FYI, there is a hybrid plan (that I advocate for) that falls somewhere between a full participatory democracy and what we have now. It's a little late, so I'll just post a link, and if you're interested, you can research it for yourself. Note the diagram in the middle of the page labeled "Government 2.0". It shows the proposed reformed structure of government. It's a lot to take in and a lot of thought required .......... but I think our liberty is worth it.

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-sense-31-summarydiscussion/

Cheers

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I just looked up Natasha Pettigrew, very sad. Here's a report I found:

The prosecution rested and the defense will be presenting its case Thursday afternoon. Closing and jury instruction are also expected, but a verdict may not be reached until Friday.

Pettigrew was struck and left to die by the driver of a Cadillac Escalade, Christy Littleford, on Rt. 202 in September 2010. Her bicycle was still lodge underneath the SUV when Littleford made it home, said investigators shortly after the collision. Police said Littleford claimed she thought she had hit a deer or a dog and did not stop until she arrived at her home four miles away.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/206298/373/Trial-In-Death-Of-Green-Party-Candidate-Killed-On-Bike-Continues

Seems like an unfortunate accident turned homicide (because it was a hit and run). I hope they throw the book at the woman who hit her. I mean, talked about fucked up. To leave someone on the road to die like that ... basically just to avoid liability (if the driver wouldn't have left the scene, called police right away, maybe Pettigrew would have lived) ... I have no words.

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

Littleford wouldn't want me on the jury. It affected me in a way I didn't expect and left me speechless too. I feel for her family.

[-] -2 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

The reason nobody would want you on the jury is because you do not follow one of America's most important judicial concepts: innocent until proven guilty. You have judged the case without proper evidence and testimonies. Instead of waiting for a trial verdict, you base your position on what tabloids and news agencies are saying.

[-] 1 points by Chimptastic (67) 2 years ago

"The reason nobody would want you on the jury is because you do not follow one of America's most important judicial concepts: innocent until proven guilty."

Why does no one ever finish that phrase: Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You seem to have confused "SparkyJP" with a court of law, which I suspect he is not. He, or any public speculator, can presume guilt before innocence without violating any judicial concepts.

Based on this response and your asinine comments on anarchy above, I now judge you an infantile pseudo-contrarian troll and, of course, middle class poser.

[-] -2 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

The bike stuck under the car is key.

If she was fleeing the scene, she would have removed the bike since it's damning evidence. The bike must have made a loud screeching sound as it scratched the road. Of course, the driver could have been listening to music, however, if one is fleeing a crime scene, one usually wants to hear everything that is happening.

Although we'll never know if she did realize she hit a human and fled the scene, we do know she noticed hitting something. Could it be true that she hit a dog and perhaps was scared to get out and look?

Most likely, she called the cops since they knew about the bicycle under the SUV only moments after the collision. If it was a hit and run, she certainly would not have called the cops. This means she had not realized that she did hit a human.

She is thus telling the truth and must be acquitted on all charges. Of course, we ask that she let her husband drive next time.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

In that case, why would they have called the police? Why not hide the car in the garage, clean it, and remove the bike from underneath. Then wait a bit. Most likely, nothing will point to them. If the cops do come a few hours later, then admit what happened and say you were scared and thought you hit a dear. If the cops don't come, then take the bike apart and thrash it.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

That's what I'm saying (bear with me, this is obviously just a hypothesis), but wife gets home with bicycle under her car (probably some blood splatter), husband is in holy shit mode, thinking about stuff like, now that I've seen the bike, if I don't report my wife, I become an accessory after the fact. So he comes up with this scheme (or maybe they have a heated and I imagine panicked collaboration).

[-] -1 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

You might be right, but in that case I wouldn't really call it much of a scheme. Perhaps she did get out of the car, realized the biker was dead, freaked out, and then decided to get home since it was only 4 miles away to get the advice of her husband. Perhaps he realized that if the police made it to them on their own it would look horrible, so they decided the best would be to call the police and try to cover it with some lame excuse. Who knows. The jury will decide in the trial with proper evidence under their noses.

Obviously, the fact that she drove away is a form of negligence and will be punished. There's no way you hit something then drag a part of that thing all the way back home without noticing. I don't really understand how a bike could stayed lodged under her car without making some horrible scratching noises. It seems to me you would realize the difference between a dog, a dear, or a bike being stuck under your car.

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

"must have made a loud screeching sound" - "Most likely, she called the cops" - "perhaps was scared" - "could have been listening to music"

Every one of these phrases are pure speculation and hypothetical. You obviously have an agenda to fulfill and your comments are unremarkable and pathetic.

[-] -2 points by anarkos (-7) 2 years ago

Read the words - "must have", "most likely", "perhaps", "could have". Of course this is speculation! What else can we do. Unlike you, I don't make judgements, only speculation. We'll only know what really happened after the court case. Innocent until proven guilty.

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

It seems the solution is to vote for those who refuse to take contributions of more than a few hundred dollars from each contributor. Like Buddy Roehmer and a few others. Those that take large contributions show that they are already corrupt by allowing the rich to drown out the voices of their political competitors.

[-] 2 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."--George Carlin

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

Thinking about the bipartisan bills that have passed lately; I can see a lot of truth in that quote!

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

this is important in local elections

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

Jill Stein

The Green Presidential Candidate

recommends a national bank

includes a 50% reduction in military spending

calling for election holidays

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

Kadaffi wanted to nationalize banks

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

Jill is a good one.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

She's just OK.

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

Shes outside the D and R scam, which is good in my book.

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

No language against our foreign policy of aggression

but a promises to reduce military production and close world wide bases

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

England has Queens as figure heads

Jill was born in Chicago and raised in suburban Highland Park, Illinois. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1973

http://www.jillstein.org/bio

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

gee I did my home work well all I saw was her name as a green party canidate and said ok she'll do. I know absolutely nothing about her except the fact that she wasn't one of the RnDs. I'm just going to vote against big money but I suppose I should know something about her.

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

this Harvard Rant address character not issues

Issues are more important

none the less there is a concern about the Ruling Elite such as those from Ivy League schools

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Going with a Harvard grad right now might be a strategic move for the greens. Hard to say. She's a doctor so that's good.

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

I imagine it was a strategic move of the Harvard networks

Romney, Gore, Bush and Obama all went to Harvard

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28241) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Bookmarked - thanks for sharing.

this is another message that could be shared out to other groups as I did with a speech made by Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

See link.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/letter-sent-to-the-sierra-club-at-their-e-mail-con/

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5757) 2 years ago

This is great. Their platform supports almost all of the clauses of the Free Democracy Amendment http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ and includes the central issues envisioned for a Cooperative Party http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-cooperative-party/. There even seems to be an interest in a government that could eventually result in having a Democratic Congress http://occupywallst.org/forum/amendment-for-a-democratic-congress/.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I agree that structurally the same problem applies but for now I'm voting for green party just because they don't infact have any money yet. hence they are not currupt yet.

[Removed]