Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Heads Up: Washington Post Poll Numbers

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 24, 2012, 1:30 p.m. EST by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is what the Obama Campaign is saying:



.

BREAKING: “Recent polls in several swing states show Romney asserting a lead or closing the gap in a way he hadn’t before.” The Washington Post, 8/23

— Mitt is ahead by two in Ohio, three in Virginia, one in Wisconsin, and one in Florida.

No matter how we slice and dice the numbers, we know that President Obama will lose the election and Democrats will lose the Senate if Mitt wins these four key states.

.



.

It's just demographic analysis and a bit of math.

. . . discuss . . .

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Looks like an opportunity to pressure Obama to DO (not just promise) some of the things he said he would. Get him to prosecute a banker, or free Bradley Manning, or drop the appeal on section 1021 of NDAA. That would re-energize some of the people who helped him win last time.

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 1 year ago

dude you nailed it!

[-] 2 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

push for some big legislation.

go big

health care 2.0 the public option

election reform money out

lobbyists out

support of ows agenda

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I agree. And Occupy should be in the lead not because any of these things might help Obama but because it's right and just.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Yep. Obama supporters keep saying "we can pull him to the left". Come on. Let's see it. You will never have more leverage than you have now, - before the election.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Theoretically Obama could be pulled to the left but the left has to be effective which at this moment it is not.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You would take his word if he agreed?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Certainly not. That's why I emphasized DO in my first post.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you know in right wing America before an election is the worst time to expect leftward policies right? Isn't this the time that our system requires etch a sketch moderation? Did I miss something.? What are you expecting now?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

You keep saying you can pull him to the left. I'm saying show me. If you can't do it now, you sure as hell can't do it after the election.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You don't know what will happen, or when!. I know that turning this country left after 30 years of rightward drift will take years, and much work I say we MUST pull the COUNTRY left.

You say .....

Nothing! You simply criticize the obvious need to drag the country left.

We MUST drag the country left. It WILL take years, and much work!. It will be more difficult, and take longer if people are sniping from the sidelines.

So you're saying show you? Well open your eyes we have begun the slow process of moving left. Why don't you see it?. Is it that you do see it, but don't wanna acknowledge it?

Like an aircraft carrier it is difficult to discern, it is slow going. But it is happening.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

LOL. The country isn't moving left at all. I'm not criticizing the need to do it. I'm all for it.

IMO, large voter turnouts for liberal alternative party candidates will pull the Dems left. Right now, they take your vote for granted.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh and what happens when those large voter turnouts for liberal alternative parties take votes from Dems in swing states and gets the right wing elected.? What happens then? Do we move left or right?

Is that your plan? Won't work! Dems will get the message but they will be swept from power and the right wing will fck us up the ss.!

You don't see the left ward progress? Because it is tiny! Your not lookin hard enough! We are still fighting the most massive evil 1% plutocrat resistence through the repubs in all of human history.

They ain't giving up power easily. It will take years!

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

What happens is either the Dems start acting like Dems again, or the party dies and a better one takes its place. We already are getting fcked up the ass by both parties and it's time we stopped bending over.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So it's ok for the right wing to take more power? You acknowledge that's what would happen and you are ok with that?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I don't think the right wing would take more power. Just the opposite. People voting in large numbers for true liberals would be a huge show of strength and is likely to wake up those Dem members of congress who have been going along with the corporate takeover of the country and the destruction of constitutional rights. The writing would then be on the wall that they can no longer count on lesser evil voting to keep them in power.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh so if large numbers of liberals flee the corrupt Dems and vote for alternative parties hen the right wing will not take power.

Who will take power? The alternative parties? Nope!

I'm sure you are aware of the concept "splitting the vote"

Are you pretending that wouldn't happen, and we would then be delivering more power to the right wing?

[-] 2 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

We have to wake up all people and move them left before going off the corporate cliff.

More of same is not working anymore.

Corporations purchase and control the government, through lobbyists, and officials who look other way, becoming above the law, make the law.

Read chris hedges article on careerists.

If dems was progressive ok. They are only as progressive as we demand.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well we clearly need a new dem party. We can start with the progressive caucus and work from there.

This Pres Is one guy beholden to a corrupt system. He can do very little without a strong progressive movement (OWS) pressuring the correct path.

It's up to us. We can't depend on anyone else. The days of laying back maybe voting and expecting everything to be done for us is over.

We are either gonna get out and create the change we need, and a new democratic party or we can just surrender to the tea party conservative republican 1% plutocrats.

Simple. Do not depend on anyone to do anything for you. Sorry

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Public option is going to happen. Repubs prevented it being included in ACA, Dems included the flexibility that will allow states to implement it. Several already are looking at it.

The fin regs that allow indiv execs to skate were written by repubs WE must get those laws changed. He can't not take money if repubs take it. He would lose reelection. WE must agitate to get all money out of politics. the 1% wall st banksters ain't given him all their money now. That is going to Romney because they hate the Dodd Frank fin reform that repubs watered down and promised to repeal.

Obama has spoken in favor of OWS. He has spoken in support of the issues we care about. CU especially. Repubs only attack OWS. Dems leaning people are our natural supporters. Local police have been at the center of the abuse/excessive force of OWS protesters. We have won some cases that were decided by dem appointed judges.

Afghan is a profound disappointment. I still believe he is our best option to end the military actions. He has begun the slow process of ending the endless war on terror that republicans created when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

Pres Obama has always been a moderate and I never believed all the campaign non sense so I ain't really disillusioned. In fact I feel Pres Obama has accomplished more than I expected considering the massive 1% plutocrat resistance (through repubs). They won't give up power easily. It will take years and much work.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

"Public option is going to happen. Repubs prevented it being included in ACA, Dems included the flexibility that will allow states to implement it. Several already are looking at it."

Yes One would hope. My state may not be able to pay the 10percent for the additional medicare patients. Not all state will opt in. see Texas, et al.

"The fin regs that allow indiv execs to skate were written by repubs"

well, the dems should have fillibustered. Obama's DNC platform doesn't include a glass-steagle type regulations.

"WE must get those laws changed. He can't not take money if repubs take it. He would lose reelection."

well maybe he should take a lead to get money out of politics then

"WE must agitate to get all money out of politics."

Yes I agree. More agitation.

" the 1% wall st banksters ain't given him all their money now. That is going to Romney because they hate the Dodd Frank fin reform that repubs watered down and promised to repeal."

and they don't want to pay an extra 4 percent tax, "millionaires tax"

"Obama has spoken in favor of OWS. He has spoken in support of the issues we care about. CU especially."

I will look into this, but I do not recall him speaking in favor of ows.

"Repubs only attack OWS."

Well duh, one must be an idiot or sell out - that's a fundamental requirement for membership in RNc --check in your brain at the door.

"Dems leaning people are our natural supporters."

Yes the people are more supportive than the leaders.

Local police have been at the center of the abuse/excessive force of OWS protesters. We have won some cases that were decided by dem appointed judges. agree

Afghan is a profound disappointment. agree

I still believe he is our best option to end the military actions. He has begun the slow process of ending the endless war on terror that republicans created when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

this is a war with no goal to end. you can't have a cease fire with terror.

"Pres Obama has always been a moderate and I never believed all the campaign non sense so I ain't really disillusioned. In fact I feel Pres Obama has accomplished more than I expected considering the massive 1% plutocrat resistance (through repubs). They won't give up power easily. It will take years and much work."

yes he is a right-moderate. he needs to speak up more in bully pulpit, put on his boxing gloves, and give the repubs a massive defeat, and push the reforms needed.

I like him as a person and speaker. if he doesn't give major smack down to the right, and get the money back from wall street, and end the war soon, then the country needs a new democrat party, cause the dems aren't being dems.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Who is going right?

We must agitate to strengthen fin regs/laws that protect indiv execs and jail them.

We must demand progressives be MOST progressive, through constant growing protest. That is what is different now.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

I think obama is a righty now.

when do we see positive coverage of ows in main stream media

although you show he may have been at work guiding DHS to take it easy on a Portland protest, that was too little too late. OWS has effectively been banned from the streets. That is under obama.

also, where was the public option in the health care debate. didn't even make it to the discussion tables.

and we should have been out of afghanistan on day 1.

if obama is ok, he should open the debates to let in a third party or fourth party.

he gets major money from wall street, has not prosecuted anybody on Wall Street. even my mom, the biggest O supporter, knows this is wrong.

He didn't prosecute the waterboarders.

He should have investigated how we became involved in iraq, expose what happened, and brought real charges against them.

he gave us much hope but not enough change i can believe in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWzAC5B6Wx8

Obama is more right than Ronald Reagan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/who-is-more-conservative_b_638947.html

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/08/31/obama-is-the-worst-thing-to-ha/

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dems have failed us when they vote for conservative policies. We would not have these problems if not for some Dems always betraying progressive principles.

We need progressives like Sen Sanders. And we need to vote out conservative 1% tools.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

Wall street goons have not been held liable. The wealthy have a free pass, and give one back to a corporate politician, if one should ever get defeated by ballot.

I have not heard enough from these so called liberal politicians.

We are gradually becoming not important to them. Despite what the cons say, they are going right, because they have nothing to loose and much to gain.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

The corporatists are already in power. I won't participate in re-electing them. This does not mean I won't vote for any Dem candidates. I will be voting for Martin Heinrich who showed some moral backbone by voting against NDAA.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Grow up!

Why don't you stop trying to get republicans elected by telling progressives they should vote 3rd party and split the liberal vote.

You know the only way to work within the system is to keep the worst right wingers out and pressure all pols with massive protests to pass progressive solutions.

Stop serving republicans

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Give up?. Has your plan been uncovered. Split the left, empower more right wing wackos.?

Why do you want to dilute the votes on the left.?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

shoo

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So your goal IS tosplit the left leaning vote & give power over to the right wing? Exactly what the 1% plutocrats want! Are you one of those who believes things must get worse before they get better?

Does it matter to you that when the right wing pushes us further right it will be more difficult to come back to left/progressive solutions? And that millions more people (poor people) will suffer as a result of your splitting of the vote? Does this matter at all?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

shoo fly

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

SO the right wants to push the working class over the edge, right? So what do the dems want? It looks to me like they are preparing the welfare state for when the right pushes us over. Like one guy(dems) kneeling behind us and the other guy pushing us over the backs of them dems. You know that trick, right? You fucks are so full of shit. Two sides of the same coin.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Are you pretending that wouldn't happen, and we would then be delivering more power to the right wing?

Are you trying to hand overpower to the right wing.?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Asked and answered.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You didn't answer the question. Please tell me what you think about the whole split the vote thing.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

If the Dems had a halfway decent candidate for pres., it would be a consideration for me. Obama is so horrific, I would not vote for him under any circumstances.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Each one of these things would provide some measure of motivation to a few people.

What you overlook is that each of these proposals has a cost.

I lack the data for a cost benefit analysis - I'll bet the campaign has one of sorts, it would be interesting to see it.

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

No sensible liberal / progressive will NOT vote for Obama.
The only votes available are IN THE MIDDLE
Obama can and should take actions to attract the ONLY undecided voters.

Attention anti-politics anarchists - non-voters -
would you vote for Obama if he did any one of these, but not all ?
implemented Medicare for all today
pull every soldier out of Afganhstan today
spend $100,000,000,000 on infrastructure today
put 100 banksters in jail today


Obama is not a saint - but he's not a king either.


Consider Gitmo - he promised to close it - why didn't he?
You can blame him, or blame the party that has obstructed us all


hitler blamed the Jews to attain power
Rs are blaming Obama to attain power


OPEN YOUR EYES


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

and the leaders will be as legitimate as their predecessors

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I know that you are worried about a Romney win, but how much different do you believe things would be today if Obama had lost to McCain? For one thing how would that have changed the outcome of the 2010 election?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the 2010 election analysis requires a state by state look at who ran, who won, who lost, and most of that information is beyond my focus.

I would point out that McCain did advocate a much greater role in Libya by the US government, and I have no doubt that we would have seen just that under McCain - with a diverse set of consequences including a dramatic increase in the deficit, resulting in greater pressure to increase taxation on the middle class - would this have also translated into pressure to increase tax on the one percent? maybe - how successful such pressure might be remains in doubt.

A larger role in Libya tends to suggest the possibility of a greater role in Syria as well, had McCain been elected. The presence of chemical weapons might seem a deterrent to direct US intervention - at the same time the presence of these weapons produce their own incentive for some sort of US involvement - there can be little doubt that under McCain we would be shipping arms to the rebels in large numbers, we would have troops in residence in Turkey ready to intervene to secure WMD, we would have envoys agitating among Middle Eastern allies for a no fly zone . . .

and all of this would impact the federal budget.

I am positive there are any number of differences just on the basis of the Libya and Syria issues of foreign policy that I have over looked, as well as their impact here at home.

Under McCain it is uncertain if we would have had any movement on banking reform at all.

We would certainly not have the health care changes that are going into affect now.

Solutions to the economic crisis - the bailouts - might have been much smaller, with fewer dollars going to infrastructure projects, leading to higher unemployment now, perhaps at or above 9-10%.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Even if you are right on every point (good arguments could be made that only about 1/2 of what you wrote is even possible) the differences are in the noise. On the big issues of the ever increasing size of Gov, the waste, the cronyism, the spying, the drone strikes, the intrusion on our private lives, the inefficiency and ineptitude of Gov goes one without skipping a beat. Dem or Rep matters little.

That is why 70% of the time Americans vote for divided Gov. It minimizes the damage that a single party could do, unchecked.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It minimizes the damage

that is just it - we are way past that point. First indication: when al qaeda attacked the USS Cole and the two embassy bombings - the repelican obsession was over a blue dress - that blue dress trumped issues of national security, and it did so for political reasons.

September 11, 2001 came a short time later - and it must be seen to be a direct result of the party divisiveness that repelicans depend on.

There is the issue of global warming - can you name on dem who denies it is taking place? Maybe you can, I dunno, but I don't know of one.

The budget debate - repelicans stalled on a debt ceiling compromise - Obama offered them everything they wanted - almost - and still they refused. If you reexamine that debate you will discover the brinkmanship they engaged in was unprecedented. The uncertainty created fear on the market and stocks plummeted. Job hiring ground to a halt.

Repelicans will sacrifice everything for political gain.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There are a lot of thought provoking issues in your post. Please let me answer in parts.

There are plenty of Dems in coal producing states like PA and WV that don't support the doomsday predictions attributed to AGW. They also don't support the enviro-phobic claims of death by fracking.

That said these pols only suppport things that will get them through the next election cycle. They will switch parties if that keeps them in power. (BTW, AGW is a tiny problem for which there are currently technical solutions, but there is no financial incentive to execute. It is tiny compared to the 35000 that we kill on US roads (250000 are the maimed) , 45000 killed with handguns, and another 350000 killed by McDonald's french fries (and the like)). Electing pols is not the solution to our problems. Getting them out of the way of the real problem solvers would improve things rapidly.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Your estimate of the threat posed by global warming is I think woefully inadequate.

  • 2 degrees Celcius

Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up."

  • 565 gigatons

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.

  • 2795 Gigatons

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz24PgfJZZV

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

One observation about the predictions of environmental doom. Go back as far as you want and make a list of all of the dire predictions of world wide calamity: global cooling, Alar, DDT, Ozone Holes, CFCs, silicone breast implants, Love Canal, nuclear winter, silent springs, acid rain , end of biodiversity, over population, energy crisis, and on and on. How many have them have destroyed humanity as forecasted? They may as well grow a long beard and walk around with a sign reading "The End Is Near".

These distractions prevent us from focusing on the real problems of poverty, disease, illiteracy, and tyranny.

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" - Y. Berra

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees.

the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

  • 3,215 high temperature records tied or broken in a single month: June, 2012. ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • May, warmest month on record for Northern Hemisphere ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • 327 months in a row, average global temp exceeds global 20th century average ~McKibben, 350.org

  • the first seven months of 2012 were the warmest, on average, in more than 100 years. ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • Spring, 2012, represents "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • we're losing the fight, badly . . . because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in. ~ George Monbiot

  • Globally, nine of the top ten hottest years on record occurred since 2000 ~ NASA

  • One third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • the atmosphere over the oceans now holds five percent more moisture ~ McKibben, 350.org

  • we're losing the fight, badly . . . because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in. ~ George Monbiot

we're losing the fight, badly . . . because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in. ~ George Monbiot

.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Have you read Lomborg’s perspective on this issue?

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/movies/12cool.html?_r=0

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

No I haven't. But I have seen the pbs spots on the shrinking ice sheets.

Ever heard of Glacier National Park?

It'll probably close within the next ten years - or less.

I've got pictures. Would you like pictures?

Pictures of drunken trees - that's what they call them. The permafrost melts, the ground gives way, and the trees lean every which way as a result.

Rail road beds snake back and forth, up and down, in ways never imagined when they were built - on permafrost.

Interesting thing about permafrost - it appears it isn't

Coral reefs - bleached dead due to sulfur I believe - and they are an important component in the oceanic food chain world wide

I live in snow country. Last year I plowed snow 1.5 times. It used to be a normal season was about 20 times.

Do you get that?

The entire ski industry is hurting, and it is a significant component of the local economy.

Don't tell me there is no global warming.

I know better.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I never said that there was no global warming. The question is what to do about it.

Lomborg is worth a quick read. He gives a sobering, non-reactionary, environmentalist's view on where we should spend our money, and more importantly on where to spend our intellectual capital.

Maybe saving the 4 million people that starve on this planet every year is more important than providing a place where rich people can slide down a hill?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm not a skier. You seemed to be dismissing the threat posed by global warming, I was simply stating the reality as it is where I live. Several hundred million people may become environmental refugees as a direct result of global warming - all in the next 30 - 50 years.

We could solve the lack of clean drinking water for over one billion people on the planet with about $30 billion. That's about $30 a head.

Should we? Absolutely.

Should we address global poverty and starvation? Absolutely.

Should we address global warming? Absolutely - and if we don't it is possible the human race may go extinct.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How exactly do you propose to address global warming? What things can humans do to prevent the warming that is predicted over the next 100 years? Have you seen any proposals that are possible to implement that would prevent (or even delay by a few years) the predicted warming?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Nope. We can't even get that discussion going -

why?

because repelicans constantly LIE and say it doesn't even EXIST.

In Vermont we have maybe 5% of the house from the wrong side of the aisle, and in the Senate perhaps 20%.

That trend is going to continue - nationwide

  • and the fascist fucks will be leaving DC in droves

the lying bastards.

And I intend to do what I can to usher them along.

wanna buy a t shirt?

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

One of those TP nuts would have slipped a heart-attack pill in McCain's tea by now, and we'd have President Palin ( shooting OWS protesters from her helicopter ). Pat Roberts chief of staff, invade and occupy Canada and Mexico, Cuba would be a nuclear weapon test sight, Fox would be declared the only channel, Too scary to go on.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Somehow I do not find the prospects of a Romney Presidency any more comforting than the picture you just painted.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

Do you remember the campaign stop where a very derange lady blurted that Obama was an Arab and/or Muslim... and McCain said, "No ma'am, he's a decent American..."? Palin lacks anything resembling that kind of civility. And would boldly Preside accordingly. Romney would be like a smarter Bush and a dumber Nixon. And the corp-world would finally get to take their boots off the neck of our economy. Meanwhile, the New World Order cabal would have Carte Blanche. Very scary.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yes I do remember that.

Occasionally McCain does manage to reach above the repelican mainstream and act in a manner that demands tremendous respect.

Having said that, I recall seeing his wife share the dias while her arm was in a cast - and that does give me a bit of pause with respect to the Senator.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

but the Romney scenario is quite startling, for other reasons.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

McCain/Palin won the white vote in spite of all the horrors that the GOP had caused. It was the record turnout of Blacks as well as college youth that turned the election, also in spite of Wall Street's clear favoring of Obama (now they've flipped) . It's a racist country this USA. Obama does not have the enthusiasm factor that he did four years ago and i don't feel very optimistic for the chances of beating the fascists at the polls this year. Still gotta try.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

If Romney wins the White House - why not just write a blank check to Wall Street?

Turn in all of our civil liberty

turn out the lights on freedom, on democracy, for clearly it will be known - Big Money Reigns.

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

Wall Street already has a blank check. The Fed is about to dump yet more money into Wall Street. Is that only important depending on who is president?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

IF Wall Street already has a blank check, then why did the President sign legislation intended to curb predatory lending practices?

I'm not saying that bill went far enough - not at all.

I'm saying that Wall Street will have unlimited access to its various methods of influence peddling

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

Predatory lenders are not publicly traded companies and are not part of the broader Wall Street end of finance. It something he can show off, just like you're doing with it. It's meaningless in the big picture. I'm talking about the economy, not street cons in suit, though they should be beaten with a rubber hose for fuking the elderly.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

OWS must be the difference. We must hold all pols feet to the fire and agitate for progressive solutions to the disaster that conservative policies have created. D's have failed. R's are in the tank! It is up to us to take the govt back and force progressive change

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

Different words, same meaning. You insist on pre-packaged talking points. The truth needs no mask, no party. It needs people with the courage to speak it. You are obviously not a friend of the truth.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You don't support progressive change? Do you support republicans. I DO NOT!!

Protest, pressure, agitate all pols to pass progressive solutions.

vote out anti ows republicans

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

how about informing the public. If your argument has merit, it will stand on it's own.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

My message is out here. I ain't hiding anything. I believe OWS can and will be the leverage to force progressive change. Within the govt 1st, And also without if we evr get the plan for real direct democracy in motion.

Education is key. I work hard at it. Ain't you learned anything yet? I been workin on you a long ass time.

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

You've been annoying me for a long time, there is a difference.

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

me too

talking with v forces me to work at my answers

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So you ain't learnt nuthin'?

What about.....

Elect progressives like Sen Bernie Sanders? Don't we agree on that?

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

Not my state, and he isn't running for president. Why should I concern myself with the election of a state I do not live in? Isn't that overreach? I wouldn't like someone coming into Fl and trying to talk over my vote. I think they call that, respect. Something seemingly lacking in most people these days.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'll try again;

Elect progressives LIKE Sen Bernie Sanders! We agree on that right?

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

I find the term "progressive" as empty as any

if we elect "progressive" , the may well just be puppets with a different name

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Progressive solutions exist for every problem. What do you mean?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why is it annoying?

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

because it does not address an issue

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They may well be. The difference whoever we elect is that WE stay involved. Massive protests to pressure for the progressive solutions we need. That is what can make the difference. OWS.

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

that is annoying

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

the green party supports election holidays

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Me too!! I may vote Green again cause my state (NY) is solidly blue. But I do not recommend any swing stater to vote 3rd party. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

It's a hard rain gonna fall.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

...or wage slavery. Cheaper and more profitable.

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Why is the USA racists - because Obama isn't going to win his next term.

Maybe the reason is not because he is black but because he hasn't done a very good job in turning the economy around.

When he first ran for office he made promises he couldn't keep, but yet he convinced the younger generation he would make change.

Fast forward 3.5 years and what's he doing - the exact same thing he did when he first ran. Making promises for change that he knows won't happen but hoping that the younger generation will believe what he says like they did in the last election.

He continually preaches divide and conquer speeches in hopes that the younger people will believe what he says is true.

If what he preached when he first ran for office, the economy would be far better off today then it was 3.5 years ago.

He shouldn't be making promises he knows he can't keep but yet wants people to believe he can.

I guess a person with charisma can make gullible people believe anything.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Fact is bobo that McCain and Palin won the majority of white votes after their party had done such a really bang up job on the economy, foreign affairs, everything. Those who wanted a competent president (Wall Street wanted a guy who could at least put two sentences together and that was Obama) were alarmed and pumped big money to Obama because they were rightly scared to death of the incompetent hapless GOP team. (for the record i didn't vote in '08) Even with the wreck the GOP had made and even with the overwhelming ad blitz for Obama the majority of whites voted for "more of the same."

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Just because people vote for a white person doesn't make them racists unless you have facts to pove that.

When Obama was running for office there were a lot of people who looked at his experience and that's how they voted - and a lot of people in this country vote along party lines regardless of who's runnig.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

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

Southern strategy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.

The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti–African American racism and fears of lawlessness among Southern white voters and appealing to fears of growing federal power in social and economic matters (generally lumped under the concept of states' rights). Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

How about we talk about what's going on today instead of the yesteryears.

Don't you think the vast majority of todays society have a different outlook when it comes to being racists?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The Southern strategy, or Angry White Guy strategy or dog whistle racist strategy was founded by Nixon and is in effect.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-not-about-race/

Here's some level of proof about the current state of racism in the US.

Please stop expecting a recession to go away with the flip of a switch.

The last one took 6-10 years and we still had a good level of manufacturing available at that time.

[-] 1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

I am not expecting the recesion to go away with the flip of a switch - I seriously doubt it will go away within the next 10 years.

How about that for having a nice comfey feeling.

The government making people think that it can turn the economy is pure stupidity.

It's the businesses of this country that will cause the economy to change and grow.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

OK. Now do you understand that it was/is "business" that has put us in this position?

Or if you prefer, not so much "business" as the 1%ers who own/operate/control those businesses.

Many of these same 1%ers have also bought control over much of our government, even to the point of a supreme court who has declared their business as equal to, or more equal than any one of us.

PS. We paid for all of it.

Feeling comfy yet?

We're paying for more of the same at this very second.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

Our situation is so perfect in it's negative effect it's as if it was deliberately designed for it. But who would do that? Follow the money.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

I have, and it leads directly to those I call neolibe(R)tarians.

You can call them what you like, but I feel this term fits perfectly.

[-] -1 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

...can you take me higher, higher?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

I doubt it.

Why do you ask?

Are you attempting to keep up with Stormcrow?

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

He seems like a righty. Above the politicians.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

Then I suppose you are asking the wrong guy.

I haven't heard form the storm lately.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

Higher than politicians. TPB

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

OK then, I guess you are.

Enjoy your buzz.

See you around.

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

oooops, TPTB, the powers that be

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34879) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It's a racist world. And to get past that - we need to address issues - not religions or skin color or party politics - Issues of Benefit to ALL and issues that are a Detriment to ALL.

America is quite a bit less violently racist then many places in the world.

We have a long way to go to reach maturity - but so does the rest of the world.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

What's your point? that Black people should not have demands specific to their unique situation? That skin color really doesn't matter? Really, I'm trying to understand this, i know you mean well.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34879) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Many people have the same issues as eachother. Employment, Wages, Education, Health Care, Housing etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

These are issues that everyone can unite on - and then instead of making individual demands - we make universal demands.

One example : Living wage for all workers "minimum requirement" for any job anywhere in the USA - entry level.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Well, here's a little story: Cops in NYC stop black youth and frisk them without cause. They make them dump their pockets and if there's a joint oh brother that's not good. This doesn't happen to white youth who are more likely than blacks to have drugs on them. In fact unarmed black people get shot in the back by NYPD. Then there's the well known study that showed how white job applicants with felony records were more likely to be hired than equally qualified blacks. Then there's the fact that blacks were steered to dodgy mortgages even when qualified for "normal " ones. That's why this phenomenon of people losing their homes nationwide hits black people disproportionately. Attitudes like yours lead to black separatism and a de facto boycott of stuff like Occupy.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34879) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

To get past these issues - we must all stand together and demand the these illegal practices be stopped. This is exactly what some of OWS and the other Occupy movements are doing. Protesting racial profiling. Protesting unequal treatment under the law. It is not just a black issue either it is an issue of all colored minorities. It is an issue also of all ( ALL ) people who are poor. It is even worse for women in many instances ( and yes of all color )

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 1 year ago

Never give up.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

Clear as mud you so and so.

Do you fancy yourself a poet?

Or just a confused confuzular?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
  • confuzular

I like that. But I wonder . . . Should it not be a confuzular argument from a conuzulite?

I dunno . . .

  • confuzulist?

  • confoundulariate?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

if you don't want to vote then don't it's your choice and you get to live with it

[-] 1 points by shooz (17966) 1 year ago

Now I'm completely discombobulated, but all of those will work as well...............:)

BTW. I still hate (R)epelican'ts, so I'm not sure if it worked..

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Well, I'm glad that's finally over; we can move on now right?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13629) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Indeed we can - Romney has won, there is no need for right wing agitation what so ever.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

haha... good.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

Well first of all I'm not ideologue; I share none of the ideological tenets of either party.

I don't support suppression; nor do I support fraud which in my mind occurs primarily in two ways - a) the non-citizen vote and b) the false identity mail-in. .

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You think non citizens who avoid authority at all costs are voting illegally?

Does it matter that several recent investigations have found no appreciable voter fraud?

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I think it depends on the locale. And I don't buy the no appreciable fraud assertion, especially as relates to the absentee vote.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh well. Perhaps if you do more research you will understand that we cannot resolve fraud by suppressing millions of other voters.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 1 year ago

I think it's a ridiculous conversation; I do not favor fraud and there's just as much evidence of this as there is of Republican suppression.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There is no evidence of fraud.

Discussing republican efforts at suppressing dem votes is only ridiculous if you want to cover for the criminal activity of the republicans.

Is that what you are trying to do?

[-] -3 points by cajunMan (-10) 1 year ago

In other related news!!!!!!!!! University of Virginia declines Obama request to speak on campus Bye bye obummer bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/25/university-virginia-declines-obama-request-to-speak-on-campus/#ixzz24aFGP1VD