Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I hate to do this

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 6:27 p.m. EST by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

But, it's a reality thing.

Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination. You will have exactly four choices in November 2012. Choose one. Choose one, then editorialize. You will be choosing one in 2012. Tell us which it will be.

1.) Not voting for any of the bums.

2.) Throwing my vote away for a third party candidate.

3.) Voting for the Obama/Biden ticket.

4.) Voting for the Romney/Gingrich ticket.

This is not advocacy. It's a reality check. We need to change the system, change the process, change the candidates - none of that will affect the 2012 elections significantly however. We will have these four choices, which have already been set. I'm honestly curious as to what you all (even the trolls, and especially the Ron Paul fans) will do with your votes.

154 Comments

154 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by divineright (664) 2 years ago

I'll be voting for "not Romney" but still undecided on 1, 2, or 3.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I haven't made a secret of what I plan to do with my vote - I won't vote for a corrupt repelican who claims that corporations are people too.

I won't.

And I won't throw my vote away either. I will use the numbers to my advantage.

Is the current President a dishonest liar and a thief? I do not think so, I know some in this movement will disagree. I could be wrong. It does happen. I know - it is rare, but it does, on occasion, happen that I am wrong.

If I am - not a big deal. If we manage this movement right, then by the time of the next presidential election we should have major control of both houses.

The key is to maintain an unwavering commitment to American principles and values - a constant repelican theme, which they never adhere to. the core of these is fairness.

As long as we are fair - to all, and not just those who agree with us - we can't lose.

[note to self: lose as in lost; not loose as in screw]

[-] 3 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

I tend to agree. I think Obama is weak, and way too ready to compromise. I think he's committed to this non-confrontational thing to the detriment of all else, and basically leaves him looking unprincipled and calculating. His position on things like indefinite detention and energy policy are beyond me, and he hasn't exactly bloodied his fists defending social security, etc.

But, all that said, he's the best of a lot of crappy alternatives.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I think a lot of what you have just cited may stem from the health care thing - and attempts on the President's part to get support from outside the political system - from the public itself - because he's come up against such a solid wall of resistance, and the dems aren't very helpful in providing consistent support.

Social Security is one example - he hasn't been very forceful on our behalf on that issue - which seems insane, unless he is counting on a public backlash, and hopes it gets aimed at repelicans.

That's the only way I can make sense of it. I'm sure there are other explanations.

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Honestly, until he cans every single corporate/finance shill in his administration, especially Geithner, he'll get nothing but my vote by default. That alone is almost enough to make me vote Republican, just to spite the Goldman Sachs crew that apparently owns him - except I'd be voting in the other tool that they own...

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I understand the distrust - I feel it myself. But the fact is, he couldn't appoint me in Geithner's place - I have trouble enough with my own check book, let alone the complexity that is bank lending to bank and so on.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

It's not just distrust. That guy is philosophically antithetical to everything progressive. He's a neoliberal Friedmanite inflation hawk. That Obama relies on him almost exclusively for economic policy is surreal. Who needs enemies when we have friends like Obama.

Sorry, venting.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I've never considered Obama a "friend". Honestly I'd sooner vote Clinton or Gore or Kerry (none of whom I like), than to ever cast a vote for Obama. I've read his book and listened to his late 90s/ early 2000s speeches and they are rather... odd.

When a guy says, "We will impose carbon taxes and that will cause electricity bills to skyrocket," I have to wonder what his agenda is. And then he hires people for his staff who are ex-communists (Jones) and ex-bankers (nearly all of them). Obama is like the perfect politician. In other words - a warm friendly guy who you can't trust.

I wish Hillary had won the presidency rather than Obama. Or Al Gore.

[+] -5 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

^^^

Oh good. Someone who can see the obvious. (That Obama's advisors are almost all bankers and megacorp shills.) Did you hear the latest news? Treasury Secretary Geitner was giving special favors and advance stock tips to his friends on wall street. He should be impeached IMHO.

[+] -5 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

What's wrong with Social Security? My parents are still receiving their checks. Of course not increasing their allowance with the claim "cost of living did not go up" is pretty ridiculous, but I don't see how Obama is meant to fix that?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

There's debate over whether to increase taxes or not, and if not then they probably won't get the COLA.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Social Security is funded outside the general fund, the 'raise in tax' meaning FICA isn't a raise at all, but rather a ending of a FICA tax cut that occurred during the last Administration. So FICA taxes will return to the 7.5% from the current 4.3% it is today.

I know, it's a pain.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What is a pain is the way repelicans insist on attempting to balance the budged by ending it.

I mean . . . wtf?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Ah but a $2.8 trillion dollar debt (think that number is accurate) and a $2.3 trillion dollar balance is a very attractive finance source wouldn't you agree?

End SS then that debt is canceled and the funds available for plunder.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

o yeah - the plunder part I do get

[+] -4 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Eventually they'll have no choice but to fund SSI from the general income tax, or else it will run out of money.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Actually no, SSI has always been funded from the general fund, SS is funded from the Social Security Trust Fund, both however are administered by the Social Security Administration Agency, which makes sense because a second agency did not then have to be created.

SS could easily be gaining by two methods, return the interest that is supposed to be paid into the trust by ending the redirection of the interest to the general fund, and to allow the return to the pre tax break amounts paid into SS.

I've read economic statements that indicate that the Social Security Trust Fund could have been in position to finance SS and SSI along with SSDI IF the interest had been placed into the Trust for the last 30 years...but projections even when done in reverse are just educated guesses.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

SS and SSI

I had no idea these were separate programs. What's the difference between SS and SSI?

SS could easily be gaining by two methods

No it's not that simple. In another decade the Boomers (the largest generation ever) will be retired, and they outnumber the Workers by almost 1.5-to-1. Simply put there's not enough workers at the bottom of the pyramid to keep the retirees at the top supplied with monthly checks.

That's why they will need to pull money from the Income Tax to keep the Social Security funded. The 7.5% FICA will not be enough.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You are absolutely right, ZenDog! We are setting ourselves up for a repeat of the 1968 debacle if we don't vote for Obama. The Democrats were split over Vietnam and many didn't vote, which gave us Tricky Dick, and really started us down the road to where we are now. Those who don't learn from history are forced to repeat it.

Given the reality of the two-party system, and where we now stand vis-a-vis the upcoming election, our ONLY way forward is to back every progressive Democrat and vote for Obama. To do otherwise will spell DISASTER for this country. Anyone who says Romney is no worse than Obama needs to get a history lesson! Believe me, things can get A LOT WORSE!

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

love norm macdonald references!

[-] 1 points by almondjoysgotnuts (0) 2 years ago

The next Congressional election is at the same time as the Presidential election so it will be pretty difficult for the Dems to control both houses by then...

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm not so sure - a chief portion of the repelican platform has been there is no global warming

I don't think there will be too many repelicans left by 2016

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I'll confirm it for you.... You are wrong!

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that may be, but the repelican party is still all done

there is no global warming

water boarding

corporations are people too

lets privatize social security!

they are done.

Anyone can see that. even you.

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

They are all done. You can thank the democrats for the mess we are in too. Corruption crosses party lines and one group is no better then the other. The shame is the 99% continues to elect the same corporate owned Politicians year after year. Things will not change till we vote both of these parties out of The House and Senate.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You can try. I'm perfectly happy to rid Congress of corruption where ever it exists.

The legislators from Vermont - they are all going back to DC. They are good men.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Yes, Obama has been very dishonest in his presidency. Not to mention he couldn't lead his dog out of a wet paper bag. Sad thing is you arent going to get any better on the other side.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

He said he would get us out of Iraq, and we are well on the way.

[-] 1 points by maureen (19) from Novato, CA 2 years ago

We were kicked out. Iraqi government refused to agree to immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops so no agreement on extending the withdrawal deadline was reached and they asked us to leave. It had nothing to do with Obama.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

i am so sick and tired of the repelican bullshit lies and spin

Who, in YOUR opinion, EMPOWERED the Iraqi people and their aspiration to see the U.S. leave?

BARACK OBAMA did. AS CAnDIdate.

you FUckINg MorOns.

[-] 1 points by maureen (19) from Novato, CA 2 years ago

"Until last month, U.S. and Iraqi leaders had been negotiating an agreement to keep roughly 3,000 U.S. troops in the country to train Iraqi forces. But those talks broke down when Iraqi leaders refused to grant the U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, prompting President Barack Obama to announce a complete withdrawal by Dec. 31."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833104577070081897465976.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Really, so his proposal to leave 10 - 12 thousand troops there as "Advisors" and another 10K in Kuwait right next door is the U.S. out of Iraq?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Any advisers to the Iraqis will depend entirely on the Iraqis themselves - if they don't want us there we won't be there.

And it is a far cry from the neo-con plan of 50,000 troops for 50 years.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

the point is, it's not a pull out of Iraq at all. It's another attempt to get votes from the uneducated who think he is doing what he said he would. Just like the promise that he would be the great uniter of the country and is now leading the charge of class warfare in the country.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The specter of class warfare is one John boner raised himself - as if we were waging war on the one percent - and that was before Occupy stood up.

The President isn't leading the charge. If anything, he's attempting to get out of the way, so that the people and the repelican party can have it out.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

You have to take off your Obama rose colored glasses. He and Boner are the same person in a different blue suit. Watch some footage of Obama when he does these speaches across the country that aren't telivised and listen to what he says, it is the exact same message that the republicans are rolling out with a heavy liberal twist.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

o horseshit

they were saying the exact opposite during the budget debate - i watched on tv - screaming

the fuckers wouldn't listen to me

here

as far as boner crafting his message to sound like the President, I would not doubt - the President is a popular guy, and one hell of a speech writer.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Your one of those people who no matter what facts your shown about Obama your going to defend him. Waiste of time, thank god we only have a year left with him.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

bwaha hahaha!

keep dreamin!

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

I'll take your lack of a disagreement of my assessment of you as a "I hit the nail on the head."

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I try to keep an open mind on things - and with that in mind I see quite plainly how lying and two faced the repelican party has become.

I would examine the President in an absence of their influence.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 2 years ago

Yet you fail to recognize that both parties are exactly the same in that regard. They are all full of it, ones message lies to one side and the other one to its side. That's exactly what I'm talking about. People need to take the rose colored glasses. Niether party has anyone in the countries best interest at heart! Until we recognize that, we will be stuck with the same two party jackwagons we have been festering in for the last 20 years.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That is not true. In Vermont we have very good representation at the federal level. I have no idea what other states have to contend with.

I don't know if you are lying to yourself, or trying to lie to me - but I've been watching them for awhile, and I don't buy that lie.

Any organization is full of people - few of them agree on everything. Most people tend toward some degree of honesty. Those in Congress, given that they are confronted with opportunities to corruption, likely demonstrate a different ratio or curve on that trend - but when you compare policy statements and advocacy,

repelicans lose

hands down.

[+] -5 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

The current president is JUST as corporatist as any republican.

Obama is close friends with the Insurance, pharmacy, and Hollywood corporations. Not only has he received more money from corporations than any other candidate in history, but he's spent the last 3 years rewarding his benefactors with Bailouts, Corporate Welfare, Hollywood copyright "czars" to sue movie/song downloaders (that's us), and ~40 million new customers for insurance companies (the mandatory purchase law).

  • I don't know why some people can't see that Obama is no better than any of the Repubs. He's a close friend of the corporations that funded his election in 2008.

I can also add that he's a warmonger (just like Jackass Bush), but I think that's pretty obvious already. The Iraq War lasted two years longer than it should have, ditto the Afghan war, plus that stupid war against Libya this past year, and now he's planning a military strike with Israel and the UK against Syria and Iran. (Plus pissing-off the superpower known as Russia.)

And of course the Prison in Guantanamo is still open, Private Manning is still being held for years without a constitutional-required trial, we have TSA stopping cars along highways and searching them, et cetera.

  • I'm sorry if I sound angry but I completely and totally disagree with the idea that Obama is "just a nice guy". No. He really isn't. He's just as bad as Bush was IMHO.
[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's just repelican spin. You can believe it if you want. I don't.

He left the possibility of the public option open when the issue came up before Congress. There wasn't enough support in Congress, and the grass roots were divided.

All of this both parties bullshit is just the line the media hides behind - and you buy it! -

  • repelicans are the ones insisting corporations have tongues.
[+] -5 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Republican spin? Okay. So why do YOU think that Obama is passing laws that punish people for downloading songs, setup as copyright czar to pursue those cases, and required that people buy insurance (thereby giving those companies ~40 million new customers). Why is he giving Homeland Security and the TSA power to search cars along interstates? Why doesn't he tell Big Sister Janet Napolitano to stop that nonsense?

And how do you justify all this killing overseas? Have you seen the pictures of a little girl whose jaw was blown-off by a NATO airstrike? It's horrifying.

Republicans are the ones insisting corporations have tongues.

Funny. I thought that was the SUPREME COURT that said that? And not just recently, but all the way back in the 1890s when they gave corporations "personhood". It seems you are correct in principle, but your target should be the JUSTICES not the politicians.

BTW I agree the two parties are not the same. They are both evil, albeit in different fashion. I'm surprised you think the Democrats are "good". Especially Obama - who is an obvious corporatist otherwise he wouldn't be charging $35,000 a plate just to hear him give a dinner speech.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • laws that punish people for downloading songs

I write poety. Not that it's a big deal, or will ever make any money. That isn't the point. The point is, I have intellectual property rights. So do song writers and musicians. You want to be a theif? That's your business. I don't mind if you get caught.

  • insurance

It's a huge issue - and when you get old enough to work full time, you will understand that health insurance is a huge expense the way the system is set up now, and the cost rises anywhere from 20% to 60% every single year. This rate of increase is not sustainable. One consequence has been life saving medical procedures have been denied people because the insurance system as is has in many cases denied it.

that's just wrong. The President has attempted to address this issue - with a solution similar to something Nixon proposed years ago - he was a repelican - and today's repelicans scream and lie and stall - to the benefit of the status quo. It's insane. Who suffers? the middle and low end of the economic spectrum.

  • Searching cars on the interstate

I dunno. The police can already do that on the basis of something called probable cause. I'm sure if you don't break the law you won't have to worry about it. I don't.

  • Killing overseas

well. You know. Some people just plain need killing.

  • Corporate personhood

Yes, I understand the issue goes back a way. The quickest and easiest way to address it is to remove all repelicans from Congress. Then it won't matter what some Conservative Supreme Court may decide.

As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion, I will defend it with my life, no matter how ignorant and backward it may be.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

The quickest and easiest way to address it is to remove all repelicans from Congress.

I don't see how having 100% Democrats in Congress will make any difference? The Supreme Court already ruled corporations have personhood. So what on earth would a Democrat-run Congress do to change that??? Nothing.

Unless they amend the Constitution, but they could have done that ANY time during the ~80 years that the Democrats were in control of Congress (since the 1890s decision).

On the contrary if the Congress was 100% Democrat, I imagine we'd end-up living under a government that resembles China's government (single party, 100% socialist, anti-free speech or free internet).

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

actually the dems tend to be the ones standing up for an open internet - see leahy.

I'm sure there is more than one way to address the issue raised by the Supremes - like repealing the legislation that introduced corporate personhood.

And I'm sure we can have one or two independents sprinkled into the Congressional mix.

Point is - the repelicans have been telling the biggest lies. They've been the biggest supporters of corruption. Their platform is on fire beneath their feet right now.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago
  • Searching cars on the interstate. I'm sure if you don't break the law you won't have to worry about it. I don't.

Well you're wrong. I was traveling from California on a vacation trip when I got stopped in Texas. The Homeland Security demanded to see inside my trunk. No warrant or probable cause. So I refused and then they made me stand in the hot sun for an HOUR, which gave me a nice sunburn. Basically they acted like the cops Occupy has encountered.

Maybe you think the Bill of Rights is meaningless, but I happen to think "no search without a judge-issued warrant" has meaning. If someone is in my trunk screaming "help" then that would be probable cause, but that was not the case. The cops were harassing me for no good reason, and they are doing the same to others as well.

So why is Obama extending the power of the cops to harass citizens in this fashion? Because Obama is of the same mold as Tyrant Bush that's why.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

It's a huge issue - and when you get old enough to work full time,

Nice insult. I happen to be an engineer with 15 years full time working experience. I guess I should have realized that an Occupier is really no better than a Teapartier when it comes to insulting/belittling other people.

Nixon proposed years ago - he was a repelican -

Nixon (and all republican presidents since then) are corporatists, so you're not really convincing me that the mandatory purchase of insurance is a good idea. It violates the Tenth Amendment of our Bill of Rights. (The power to require insurance is reserved to the People and the People's State legislatures, not the congress.)

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

(The power to require insurance is reserved to the People and the People's State legislatures, not the congress.)

So . . . I don't need auto insurance then?

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Yeah but don't you think suing a teenager 5 million dollars for downloading eleven songs is just a BIT excessive? And yet that's exactly what Obama's administration has done. And is doing (as a favor to his corporations that funded his election).

Also "stealing" is not the correct word. If I take bread from a baker, then I've deprived the baker of his proerty, because he no longer possesses his bread. I've stolen it.

But if I copy Spiderman 3 from GE (which itself stole billions from taxpayers via bailouts), all I have done is copy it. GE still has the movie and has not been deprived of possession or use of that movie.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm certain the President hasn't sued any teenagers.

If your point is that Hollywood money managers are just as bad as any others, I would agree. However I'm sure this legislation you are talking about is not the result of a Presidential Signing.

[-] 3 points by Occupyofone (2) from Mt Vernon, MO 2 years ago

My vote never counts anyway, too deep in the Red. So will use my right to write in a candidate.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

That sucks. The electoral college is a travesty. Swing states are the only ones that matter.

[-] 2 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 2 years ago

As Abbey Lincoln said. . . .

Throw It Away!

That's what I always do, always picking losers.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

On who?

[-] 2 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 2 years ago

I always like the option: Decline to State.

And it sort of goes against the rules of the site to say, but since no one else is talking about her I cannot see how this could be regarded as Spam: I'd write-in Elizabeth Warren.

There, I said it.

Now let's appreciate the quaint sound of tumbleweeds for a spell. . . .

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Can't argue with your choice, at all.

I might just suggest: Send her $, move to MA, volunteer for her campaign - get her elected in the race she's actually in. Then maybe ask her how she's voting in the presidential race...

She would have my vote in a heartbeat though.

[-] 2 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 2 years ago

Yes, would that I could. I almost moved to Massachusetts 6 years ago, have some family out there.

If I could do that now, I surely would. Taking care of my ailing father right now and barely scratching by has been claiming my time lately.

When I was 16 I volunteered in Nader's Oaks Project right before his infamous 2000 run. So there's a part of me that's still disillusioned about picking Lost Causes. Haven't given up all hope just yet!

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Go Newt! Heheh.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Why waste time worrying about one office? Yes the presidency has power, but Occupy is national, they can run their own candidates in primaries and win seats in the house where laws can be made. If it's strong enough any president looking for reelection will go with what a vocal majority wants.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

its looking more and more like throwing my vote away for a third party candidate is the lesser of the four evils.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Anyone else?

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

No one?

[-] 1 points by grif713 (10) 2 years ago

Who is president is actually less important than who is in the Legislature. It is Senators and Congresscritters that decide where the money goes... and, in a capitalist society, regardless of any altruistic speeches, who controls the money has the power. Period. It would be nice to be able to believe that money doesn't have that much impact, but the reality is, it does. The Occupy movement is having an impact, which is why the 1% has used their hired armies (police, etc...) to remove them. I don't fault the police, they're doing a job few people would - but, in the end, they want a paycheck too. So the 1% use their power (money, again) to swat this fly (the Occupy Movement).... Until we start removing the 1% from the ruling seats of power they have (Congress and the Senate) we will continue just as things are..... The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The 1% will continue to pass laws that benefit them, and screw the rest of us. This is why we need to start immediate recall votes of every member of Congress and the Senate. Remove the rich from power.... Pass laws preventing them from insider trading - force them to live under the same laws as the rest of us, and we might.... just might, mind you, win back the country as our forefathers imagined it should be.

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 2 years ago

I will "throw my vote away" on a 3rd "party" candidate. I am never voting for anyone who takes money from corporations ever again.

So help me god.

If the American experiment in democracy fails, well then we didn't deserve it. But I'm not going to feed this machine any more.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

its not throwing a vote away to go third party if we have a paradigm shift and a 70 percent coalition.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA

I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again. 1. Merely protesting in the streets will not bring change. In fact merely protesting in the streets is in fact a means to the end of avoiding the real work of a revolution, which consists of the evolutionary solutions, answers, problem solving process, and new political alignment we create. 2. This forum is absolutely disorganized. It won't be read by most people and it won't and can't function as a core organizational system. 3. Back at the very start of this, I petitioned the admin to add multiple sub forums and a wiki. Multiple sub forums were promised but have never arrived. I think that this tells us that the intention actually of this forum is message control and containment. The entire purpose really of this forum has always been to keep us spinning in disorganization. We are hanging out on a forum that expressly exists to actually keep us confused and disorganized. 4. The real work of a revolution isn't going to happen on forums, it needs to happen in a much more organized fashion using collaborative software. 5. The assorted other details about how to collaborate, how to work open source direct democracy, how to focus in on science instead of isms, how to become hyper rational about this, are details which are essential and crucial, without which we can predict the movement to fail. 6. Technically speaking we are not 99 percent, we are one tenth of one percent attempting to represent the 99 percent. Our core mission must be to communicate to and with the 99 percent, and get them to join us. This forum will not accomplish that and neither will any of the other main websites. 7. You can follow other people out to other wikis and other websites, where they will try to get you to get involved with what they want and their program, but frankly speaking, there is no other website and no other operation out there which understands the complexities involved with meaningful organization. In short, everyones being led to get involved here there and everywhere else, scattering the movement in directions which ultimately do not gain us critical mass, criticial momentum, or critical systemic lucidity. 8. I have managed to get a wiki put up and have already put on that wiki evolutionary details which make it more organized than anything else. I can't do this alone. There are 10 or so wikis now out there, most of which were created in response to my pleas for a wiki, and several of which are in domains owned and operated by some corporation, (wikia, etc) And which we can thus assume will simply be closed, shut down, or deleted if they become useful to the movement. 9. Probably at least half of the invites you have to go participate at some other site are people who are scamming everyone to waste time and energy, distort the movement, co opt it, and etc. When you walk off into a closet ask yourself how you know that the closet isn't created by some fed, or by some republican, or by some democrat, in order to sway things in their direction. 10. The only meaningful strategic option we have for real change in this country is to create a new third party, and take every political office in this country. 11. Once that is done, we can have an article 5 convention. If we have an article 5 convention before getting rid of the oligachs, that just opens the genie from the bottle for them to abuse that process with their corruption and evil.

For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ

http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw

http://www.opensecrets.org/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I've already voted third party. 2000 and 2004. The party I voted for has been around a long, long time (decades). In fact they are the largest party after the Dems and Repubs, but they've never won.

In fact no third party has ever won the presidency in the entire history of the U.S. (Though they did manage to get ~20 seats in Congress circa 1910.)

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

you seem to miss the important point that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS ONCE A THIRD PARTY.

You stopped reading history back too far back.

That all has nothing to do with anything. Such third parties failed to work the issues in an evolutionary way. if occupy movement listens to people like me and implements a paradigm shift we can get a coalition of 70 percent and take EVERY office. if you all don't listen to me then you are right. we have no good options.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I knew you would say that.

And it's not true.

The top 2 parties were the Federalist and Democrats. Then the federalists faded away which left a vacuum. The Democrats were dominant, but then they split to form the Democrats and Whigs (the new top 2).

The Whigs lasted about two decades and then they dissolved. Again there was a vacuum. Out of the mess was formed a new party called the Republicans which became party #2.

Therefore no 3rd party has ever won the presidency. It has always been the top 2 on the ballot. The only way a third party could win, according to history, is if one of the top 2 dissolved and left a vacuum.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

time to kill two parties, leaving two parties to dissolve and leave a vacuum.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Now THAT'S a proposal I can get behind.

Problem is I have no idea how to knock-off either the Dems or the Repubs. They are too well-organized to just suddenly "dissolve" like happened with the Federalists and Whigs.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

easy. just bring in science facts. both parties are absolutely dependent on gross public ignorance.

on the contrary, if, out of any one of 10 scientific disciplines the public learned even a small fraction of what i know- the revolution would happen VERY quickly.

its a co-educational problem. If the mob would start fighting on the front that means anything instead of merely symbolic protest space, we could have a very legal non violent revolution in under two months or so.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Paradigm_Shifts;_How_they_Work,_What_makes_them_tick,_and_how_to_make_one_happen_now.

[-] 1 points by platnumego (1) 2 years ago

This Song & Video Was inspired by the protesters in Zucotti Park & all over the world Fighting for change!! Power to the people but more importantly power to the world! Let us be righteous in Heart & not just Mouth..... Prinxmikul. Follow @Prinxmikul. For bookings and inquiries please email platnumego@gmail.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V0ZozkCF2A

[-] 1 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 2 years ago

i vote for porky the pig

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

Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

[-] 3 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren would be the best choice, but she's not an option, either.

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

Unfortunately, young men tend to not want to be "dominated" or have as a role model an adult female politician, and then there are a signficant amount of young women who sort of go along with that dimwitted male sentiment.

A male is more likely to convince a female to vote for a male politician than a woman convincing a male to vote for a female politician.

Plus, you have the women already in power such as Oprah, Huffington, Shriver, and Pelosi who like being the female center of attention and tend to negate other strong and capable women from political success.

Kind of sad actually.

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Agreed but she can't run this year because Obama is on the Democrat ticket. You guys should have made her win in 2008 instead of voting for Obama.

I pick Mitt Romney.

He's basically a Democrat in his policies.

In fact Obama's healthcare bill was initially based-off Romney's Massachusetts-run healthcare. Romney has many, many years of executive experience including organizing the 2002 Olympics and eight years as Governor. Romney is a better Democrat than Obama is, and really should be running on the D ticket not the R ticket. He's the better man.

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

You don't know how ironically irritating it is to hear someone agree with those of us who swore off the democratic party after how they let Obama skid by Hillary Clinton using all the pork they could muster.

I think Hillary Clinton is still the best choice, she may be the only candidate that if elected the republicans will actually work with, and she'll rein in some of the ultra progressives that just want too much.

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

I am a staunch and unrepentant #2.

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

I'm voting for the green party.

Even if they don't win, enough votes will gain them exposure and influence future candidates on what they stand for.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Third party candidate Harry Browne won 1% of the vote in 2000, and Ross Perot won ~20% of the vote in 1992 (highest tally ever for a third party). Did anything change?

Nope.

Just the opposite. The top 2 parties don't give a damn about third party candidates. In fact in the whole history of our Republic, third parties have never won the highest office. Not once.

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

Thats because the sheep only vote for fascist D/R

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

So why do you think anything will be different with the Green Party? I already know what will happen. They'll get about 1/4 of a percent in 2012, and 0 electoral votes, and the Reps/Dems will continue business as usual.

You are better-off to work within the Duopoly if you want change. Like the Teaparty did in 2010/12, and the Progressive Party did when they hijacked the Democrat Party in the early 1900s.

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

Tea people got played. Spending is WAY up.

You keep trying to work with criminals and killers.

Im voting for someone who wont destroy my kids future.

Will they win? No. Can I look my kids in the face and apologize for the rest of the nations idiocy? Yes.

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Spending is WAY up.

It's only been 10 months since the Teaparty placed several persons in Congress (including Rand Paul). How about giving them TIME to get a budget through before complaining? Jeez.

Also remember that the Teaparty candidates are still outnumbered 98 to 2 (in the senate). Things don't change instantly. It took the progressives about 20 years to finally gain enough power to see some of their ideas get passed by the Congress.

Even the hippy antii-war movement required ~7 years of protesting before they finally succeeded in ending the Vietnam War. Things don't happen instantly.

But that's okay. I wasted my vote on the Libertarians twice before I wised-up and realized that only the Reps and Dems hold any real power. Maybe you too need to waste you vote a couple times before you'll finally realize voting Green changes nothing.

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

You keep voting for criminals, its what they want you do.

Keep playing their game, and when we are left with a pile of shit, you will have the voting record to back it up.

Sheep are dangerous to democracy. Especially scared sheep. Those who think NOT voting for one of two criminals is a "waste".

What a mockery of democracy this country is. The world must be laughing their asses off....

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

You keep voting for third-party people who, in the entire history of the U.S., have never won the presidency. Delude yourself that 1/4% makes any difference, and when we are left with a pile of shit, you will have a voting record to show you wasted votes on losing candidates.

I'm going for Ron Paul. He's an anti-war, pro-end-the-debt libertarian and a TRUE change from the Dems or Reps, and with an actual chance of winning (because he's on the R ticket).

[Deleted]

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

Well lets aim higher than 1%

Maybe politicians will start seeing a trend

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Ross Perot was a third party candidate who got ~20% of the popular vote. He wanted to "reform" government and make it more accountable to the People plus have a balanced budget.

So did that third party candidate getting 20% change anything?

Nope. The top 2 parties don't give a damn.

[-] 1 points by Jrobin8 (40) 2 years ago

2) I am voting for two and hear is why: We have no choice. I have been unemployed for the last month and I have been watching the coverage given to the occupy movement and the fact of the matter is it isn't much. The mainstream media shows the occupy protests when it is clashing with the police in order to draw ratings. They are not showing any of the assemblies they only want to show the occupy coverage when it is creating chaos. We need to have a party that is focused on creating the best community not the best business. Congress is at a 9% approval rating, but I guarantee that our congress is 100% democratic and republican by January 2013.........................................................unless we create a party that can bridge the gap. And I know I am going to hear it from some men for this but: Women are the majority of the shoppers, the voters, and have the biggest impact on their children why shouldn't they make up the majority of congress. Do we honestly believe that our defense, or economy will fall apart if a woman has the final say over a man? No matter how you look at it women have the biggest impact on our economy and our congress.

Also, our congress should be made of economists, scientists, doctors, etc. It should not be 70% of businessmen and lawyers.

[+] -5 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Turn-on RT.com. They talk about the Occupy protests every day, and almost all of it is favorable. I've given up trying to get any useful news from FOX or DNC-NBC.

History shows that third parties can win seats in the Congress (as high as 1/4 in the 1800s), so in theory your idea is sound. A third party will never defeat the top 2 parties but it CAN weaken them in the legislature.

[-] 3 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

RT has good coverage, but is suspect. They have close ties to the Kremlin. "What is Putin's angle?" is what you need to ask every time you tune in. That is not hyperbole. It is the successor to Soviet state television. KGB->FSB. TASS->RT.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

They have close ties to the Kremlin.

No not really. They are an independent corporation that is funded (90%) by the Russian parliament. In affect RT is no different than the BBC or France24.

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

Right, they are bought out. That being said, they are more critical than average, for obvious reasons.

But you will still never hear the bottom layers...

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

???

Please explain how RT is any different than the government-funded BBC or France24? And not just your opinion, but backed with citations/links.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Ok. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

???

Please explain how RT is any different than the government-funded BBC or France24? And not just your opinion, but backed with citations/links.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Allegations_of_pro-Russia_bias

Have to copy/paste because of the hash apparently.

[-] 1 points by Jrobin8 (40) 2 years ago

Thanks, and I will

[-] 0 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is a socalist punk

[-] 0 points by sampson (34) 2 years ago

well I don't necessarilly agree with your psychic telling abilities...

It has come down to P A U L vs. Romney. I think P A U L could possibly make the ticket the way things are going... Romney's on a downward trend, Cains out, Perry's Out, Gingrich just pigeonholed the whole OWS movement- so he's out. Bachman, no way. The other couple guys I can't even remember names, huntsman? satanorum?

And if P A U L doesn't make the Republican ticket, he'll run third party. Whichever case, I believe he's the best choice, so I'll vote for him.

That said, I'm not sure it really matters who gets in office after the non-partisan deadlock we've been in for the past couple years, So yeah I agree with this part of what you said, we need to change the system

[-] 0 points by WatTyler (263) 2 years ago

The system is broken (At least from the perspective of the 99%, the 1% has it almost where they want it.) and the Republicrats are the two sides of the same coin. 30 years of deliberate right-wing social engineering has mostly succeeded very well. There has been a consistent agenda, a plan of action and dogged, steady progress even in the face of any setbacks.

Perhaps we can learn something.

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

fortune teller. i love it. can we have the winning lottery numbers?

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

It is what it is. Denying it or fantasizing for an alternative universe isn't going to help. It will be Romney, and probably Gingrich. Or is there some other prediction you dispute? We'll get a progressive to primary Obama? Pipe dream.

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

fined and forced to resign for ethics violations

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

your theory is garbage

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

I remember. Never overestimate Republican voters or underestimate Gingrich. But that's your single point of disagreement, who will share the ticket with Romney? That's a whole lot of tempest in a teapot.

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

there are two candidates holding back while the rest make fools of themselves. one of the two will emerge at the last minute to take the primary. once the media is done chewing up the noise makers, the real republican candidates will be all over the news. in fact, they started monday.

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Bush? Palin?

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

Huntsman or Roemer / no idea who they will pick for vp.

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Oh sorry, I thought you meant undeclared candidates were going to storm in.

Romney is the nominee, period.

He cannot choose Huntsman.

Roemer? Wishful thinking and not likely. He doesn't bring enough votes to the table. Perry would, but is an idiot with more recent baggage.

I'll stick with Gingrich.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I vote for not voting, which is what the majority is going to do.

[-] 1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Fair enough. I think it means we're spoilers benefitting the Republicans (OWS splits progressives more), but as long as people are fully aware of that, I can't argue.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

OW would not gain by aligning with any of those that are out front now. And Congress is going Republican no matter what OW says or does, barring some truly unforseeable sea change.

[-] -1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is a socalist whore

[-] -1 points by EndTheFed214 (113) 2 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is a socalist whore

[-] 3 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Thanks for the bump,

Turdblossom loves his little fascist pig. Good piggy.

[-] -1 points by silverspider (33) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl would never win for this reason - he doesn't support the zionist state....

[-] -1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

write in Ron Lawl or right in the words : NON OF THE ABOVE, or NO CONFIDENCE....because if you vote for the lesser of two evils instead of your conscience, they will take your vote as a mandate and approval of anything they do afterwards.

[-] 1 points by maureen (19) from Novato, CA 2 years ago

Yes. I'm was writing in 'none of the above' but 'no confidence' is good as well.

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

The sheeple vote D/R. Im making mine count with someone who I actually belive in.

Too bad the country is too fuckin dumb to wake up. But it doesnt mean I have to join them..

[-] -1 points by buik2 (66) 2 years ago

not voting. i think the system is retarded. i know i know a lot of people have died for it and all but a democratic republic is not a very enlightened form of government.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Several years ago Japan held an election and no one came.

The Japanese people felt their vote had value and they were not offered any candidates that met that value. The election was declared null, new candidates chosen and a new election held and the vote was made.

In America we can't even agree if it's hot or cold outside on a regular basis.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

If you don't vote you forfeit your right to bitch.

[-] 1 points by buik2 (66) 2 years ago

not at all, sir. i do not believe in fixing a fundamentally fucked up system from within thats all

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

We need to exercise every possible means to change / fix / correct / replace the system.

[-] 1 points by buik2 (66) 2 years ago

thats some bullshit right there

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

You are well-dipped in it.

[-] 1 points by buik2 (66) 2 years ago

no i meant the part about exercising every possible means. that is a very bullshit thing to say and you know it. you know you're not doing it, so dont fucking say it because i will call that bullshit every dam time

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Sorry if my freedom of speech offends you.

Actually no, I'm not. Go fuck yourself.

[-] -1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

Your are right, Ron Lawl is not corrupt enough and is not part of their gang mafia mentality.

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney.

He's basically a Democrat. In fact Obama's healthcare bill was initially based-off Romney's Massachusetts government-run healthcare. Romney is a better Democrat than Obama is, and really should be running on the D ticket not the R ticket.

Romney has many, many years of executive experience including organizing the 2002 Olympics and eight years as Governor. He's the better man for president.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

He will not win. I'd bet you every penny I have.

[+] -4 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I'm not betting he will win the nomination. I used to think Hillary Clinton would be the Democrat Nominee of 2008, and look how that turned out. (Surprise.)

But I'm not betting Paul will lose either. He's already surprised me by how well he's doing. #1 is pretty impressive.

[+] -4 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

BTW thanks for modding me down to -2.

I just love how Occupy Wall Street claims "everyone's opinion is welcome" but then they censor it. Really this place is no better than a Tea Party when it comes to silencing people they don't like.

[+] -6 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Nobody else? Be brave, answer honestly. We're all Anonymous anyway. ;)

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

And now YOU'VE been downmodded from the +3 you had to -3. What on earth is going on around here?

Earlier today I discovered one of the users were using Sockpuppets (3-4 IDs) to subtract points from posts. It appears that guy is still doing it.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Awesome, thanks. Now I'm getting downvoted too.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Well don't blame me!

I modded you up. Something really screwy is happening here.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Just so it's clear, nobody is "modding" you. Other users are voting you down, for whatever reason. Maybe you're just abrasive?

[-] -2 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Sorry. On slashdot's website it's called "modding" when you are scored up or down.

I now have a -4 score. That makes my post invisible. And NO I'm not abrasive..... I'm just tired of being told "shut up" (which is essentially what's happening).

Even posts where I say "corporations suck" get downmodded. Why? I would think everyone would agree with that statement.

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

Have you been spamming for Ron PauI? I think a few people may be fed up enough with that BS that they're going after people. The mods don't enforce their own policies, so, vigilantism. My guess.

I notice you have your own little crusade going against looselyhuman. I seriously doubt he/she is doing whatever you accuse... Pretty fair person in my experience. There was another thread questioning why LH had so many up votes, and like 20 people came in and took credit for it. Just popular.

[-] -1 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

I seriously doubt he/she is doing whatever you accuse...

Well, when I made the accusation, first he erased my post (by erasing his own). And then he erased the WHOLE thread! I suspect I caught him in the act otherwise he would have just denied it rather than try to cover it up.

It's a well-known tactic to use multiple IDs. Even on wikipedia an Admin was recently caught with 3 sockpuppets, and using them to control articles and triple-vote on issues.

[-] -1 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

I pm'd LH.

[-] 0 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

Gee thanks. Why not just call the mods and have them ban me. :-|

I guess it's time to dump this ID and get myself a new one, so I can no longer be targeted by the haters.