Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I refuse to vote unless ...

Posted 2 years ago on May 18, 2012, 1:12 a.m. EST by BethS (14)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

i refuse to vote in this years presidential election unless the creeps on Wall Street that brought down the Global Economy start getting indicted and brought to trial. If this doesn't happen, why vote? Wall Street will still be in charge. I bet if we all joined forces and promised not to vote unless the ball gets rolling and we see that people who break the law, no matter how rich they are, have to be tried and convicted and sent to jail. I bet you if we join together and make this promise, we will finally see some action REALLY FAST. I anyone with me on this?

91 Comments

91 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by anonbankster (16) 2 years ago

People are going to vote regardless if you vote or not. I say vote ...I don't care for who but just vote since it's a "diversity" of tactics. Not voting only empowers Wall Street more.

[-] 0 points by jbgramps (159) 2 years ago

Too late. I already voted in the primary. I voted for Romney. Don’t have much more confidence in him than Obama, but maybe, just maybe, he will bring some good change. There are no good choices this time around. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But whatcha gonna do. Sigh.

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

Main article: Americans Elect

* No nominee

Americans Elect announced on May 17, 2012 that it would not field a candidate for President, as no candidate garnered enough support in the organization's online primary to reach its self-imposed threshold for the nomination.

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

Scroll down, there are about 30 more candidates listed.

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

And if 20% of Americans vote for these candidates, and the party that brought us the Iraq war, dereglation, market crashes, low taxes for the rich, and pledges to st. grover rather than to the United States of America wins and passes the ryan budget for david & charles & grover
WILL YOU BE SATISFIED?

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

"And if 20% of Americans vote for these candidates, and the party that brought us the Iraq war, dereglation, market crashes, low taxes for the rich"

Which party was that, the one that begun these or the one that continues them? Both parties are corrupt to the core and need to be thrown out.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

AE appears essentially defunct... no popular support.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

I think that Americans should be voting in states for ratifications of amendments to the constitution under the authority of Article V, and forget federal "anything" because it is so unconstitutional.

The states can provide overview of federal performance during this, we don't really need a president until we can be assured the one that is elected will be constitutional and that we have a congress willing to enforce the constitution.

Currently all federal entities are acting unconstitutionally in a myriad of ways. To participate is to aquiese to such. However, such a view is probably foriegn to Americans who watch TV or give credence to internet buzz because Americans are conditioned to be social, not logical.

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

social is not contradictory to logical

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but simply want to know "where" your proposed amendments come from?

OTOH, I propose a slightly different means:

Occupy the Vote

What is it?

Simply deciding, once in the voting booth, wether to support the elite's twin-party political status-quo by voting for a candidate, or oppose the status-quo by voting to remove your consent to be governed, writing in "NO CONSENT".

Vote your conscience, but vote…

How does it work?

For decades the U.S. Congress has ignored sufficient state applications calling for an Article V Convention. Read Article V of the Constitution. All that is required is for ⅔s of the states to apply -- there is no time limit on applications. And there are over seven hundred applications. It is un-Constitutional for Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention.

We demand, as petition for redress of our grievances, that Congress, in fulfillment of its Constitutional duty, call Article V Convention prior to the 2012 Congressional elections. That Convention delegates shall be selected by popular, democratic vote in each state; any and all proposed amendments shall be ratified by popular, democratic vote, in each state, with ¾ of the states required to ratify. That all voting process shall use hand-counted paper ballots.

If Congress refuses our demand to call an Article V Convention, we vote "NO CONSENT" in Congressional elections. Would any Congressional candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative or Senator (or even President) if a plurality of us opposed them by explicitly voting NO CONSENT in their election?

This is a direct, peaceful, democratic and Constitutional challenge to elite rule by voting to call an Article V Convention in the 2012 elections. Returning our consent to be governed is contingent on a Convention's successful outcome -- our ratification of amendments.

It comes down to this, are Americans "disaffected with things as they are?" Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

What does it accomplish?

It stops the elite's twin-party "heads I win, tails you lose" political game. It ends politics as usual by calling an Article V Convention which falls outside the boundaries of traditional twin-party politics. This Convention proposes amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾s of the states to become part of the Constitution.

I support the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money and inducements from both electoral and representative political processes.

Voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite...

Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. Voting is every American's Constitutional heritage and democratic obligation -- if we want politics to be more fair and democratic, we must make it so.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 2 years ago

Good strategy with the "No consent vote on the federal ballot.

I'm sold on the "preparatory amendments" found at the articlevconvention.org site. The logic of the three proposed amendments which prepare America for a general article v convention is profound, AND it limits the proposed amendments to things that are sooooooooooo constitutional, there can actually be no real objection from a sincere and informed American.

[Removed]

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

Romney?
OK - seriously -
Can you tell me ANYTHING in the last three years that he would do differently - AND BETTER - that Obama
PLEASE tell me about what Romney would do

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

i's gonna join the oil pipeline plantation and work for massa Romney for a stint

[-] 4 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

The tea party thanks you.

[-] 3 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I think you have it backwards. They will never be indicted unless you vote for congressmen that promise to indite them. Wall Street needs to see voters are aware and willing to push for change.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Agreed. and I would expand, we must get as many people to Vote as possible. That is what scares the 1% most of all! Like in the case of Wisconsin, we must vote out the anti worker politicians. Voting should be another tool for putting pressure on politicians.

[-] 0 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

How can I have it backwards when our current President is running for the presidency again. What about all the other politicians who are running for re-election? If I was to vote today, I would be voting AGAINST, instead of FOR a candidate. I want my President ,Vice President, all U.S. Senators,U.S. Representatives, State Governors,State Legislators, to be men and women who are not intimidated by the power on Wall Street. Why should we have to wait to "VOTE for congressmen who promise to indite them". Why vote for a promise when there are elected officials in office NOW. who already made promises. Isn't that part of the problem ? Now is the time, at least to get started!!

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

If you were freezing cold -
Would you hide inside a dead bantha ?
Or freeze to death ?

Go with the force - vote for the best chance for America

vote for the party that pledges to the constitution
vote against the party that pledges to the norquist

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

You said you're not going to vote unless those responsible for the collapse get indicted. They will never be indicted unless we vote in people that will investigate and charge them. Not voting is a way of keeping the status quo. We need to pressure candidates to come out in favor of investigating and charging anyone responsible.

[-] 0 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

what about the candidates who are in power now and campaigning for re-election?

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Demonstrate in an effort to get them to make a statement about your issue, then vote based on what they say. Voting is the only hold you have over them, unless you're rich and can bribe them somehow. To promise you're not going to vote only tells them your opinions don't need to be considered.

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You have it right. Voting is necessary. In fact our only hope. I would say that we should mandate that all voting age citizens vote. This would scare the 1% more than anything. Of course this is not enough! We must continue to develop a robust citizens protest movement to continue putting pressure on our elected officials. We can't fall asleep after elections and expect any 1 president to just fix everything. (like we did after Obama was elected).

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Damn Straight!!!!!!!!!!!!

We The People need to get involved and stay involved.

Those people in office work for US the People of the USA.

We have to participate in our system and further we must own the process the Democratic Process That Is Ours.

Or we will be forever at someones mercy.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

It seems simple to me. Common sense.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is It really is.

Why is common sense so uncommon?

Are people taught that if it is simple it must be wrong as it really should be complicated?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

In this case I think some people just want to suppress the vote. They're afraid of voters taking back the gov't

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

It would certainly scare me. I see a big problem now with people voting based only on a 30 second attack ad. Scares me to think of forcing more of the uninformed to vote.

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

So we can vote but not the "uninformed". And I suppose you get to decide who is uninformed? Votes for everyone! We all must be responsible if we want to enjoy this great democracy,

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

No one decides that, but it is a problem that shouldn't be blindly ignored. Wether it's in a representative republic or direct democracy. People are going to think differently. Look at what's happening, Kelly in New York is so popular he could easily run for mayor and possibly win against any Democrat. Polls show Walker with a slight lead in Wisconsin. It's not just getting people out to vote that's important. More has to be done to educate and calm the fears of those that think differently.

There's no way to prevent anyone walking in and voting based on the candidates smile or because they fear the (insert media pejorative) people in Occupy. It's nice to encourage people to vote, but while your at it try to educate them a little too. The system didn't just happen to become corrupt, ignorant people allowed it to happen.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Voting for all! the 1% do not want to expand the vote so it must be good. They are trying to suppress the vote. We need to find ways to expand voting not find reasons to limit it. We certainly should ejimacate voters but guess what ignorant people get to vote sorry. That should be the incentive to educate all!. And we are not in this situation because of ignorant people alone. It is also because many have given up and don't vote. They are saying "no consent" by not voting and guess what, no one listens because 'dat don't work!

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I'm not against voting and who knows once people start doing it they may actually try to do it in an informed way. What I am saying is that mandating everyone to vote is no guarantee that anything will change. We currently have too many people voting based on a 30 second TV spot, having more people vote that way isn't any kind of final answer.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Having everyone vote will indeed guarantee that everything will change. No doubt in my mind. And yes it will be an incentive to be more informed. and yes we should eliminate all ads attack and otherwise. All channels (which are publicly owned anyway right) will broadcast debates every week during a shortened campaign. "Too many people voting"? Wrong answer! The 1% wants to suppress the vote. That should make it easy to stake our position.! Support OWS. Vote out pro ALEC politicians

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Just a devil's advocate question. If I go to the poling place, sign for and take a ballot, do I have the right to protest by not casting an actual vote for anyone on that ballot? Does this law you visualize force me to vote when I wish to make a statement by not voting?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

"minority.... most fail to vote out of laziness"???? What??? Wrong answer. Sounds racist. Like majority people there are many reasons people don't vote, apathy, vote suppression tactics, etc. voting for all. uneducated, and lazy minorities (as you call them) as well.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Amusing conclusion based on a miscommunication. Minority as in a percentage under 50%. You're injecting race where it isn't even being thought of by me. When I say that there could be someone choosing not to vote as a protest I'm saying that I believe that is a position of only a very small number of people. Minority as a number, meaning less then half the population (of any race). I believer the majority (again referring to number of people not their race) that don't vote, likely act that way out of indifference (or as you say apathy) or laziness.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Sure you can write "no consent" You can write yourself. You can even not vote. As they do in Australia. no problem. If you refuse to vote you may be subject to fine but I doubt we would have a lot of that. In Australia where they have mandatory voting not everyone votes but turn out is massive. And that is the goal.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Seems to run contrary to my right to protest by not participating in the system. That is of course a minority position, most fail to vote out of laziness, they may or may not become informed if forced to go to the poles, there is no guarantee either way. Interesting idea, but like so many, not likely to be given a try.

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You are out of energy. I understand. Your position is indeed out of gas. And I have thoroughly uncovered your ruse. Do not throw your vote away. We must attempt to co opt one the parties. Support OWS. Vote out pro big wall st politicians.

[-] -2 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

If you send a response I will try to respond. If you don't, I won't either. Please stop telling people to waste their votes. You play into the hands of the 1%! Do you realize that? Is that what you want? I think so. People should know you are try to minimize our influence by throwing our votes away! Support OWS.

[-] -3 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC311qHA1xA

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You have given up! I win again! Easy peezy! Support OWS.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The first step is to admit you are a partisan republican. then you can embrace your mistakes. BE the improvement. Support OWS.

[-] -1 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

Correction:

Support OWS: Vote out ALL Democrats and Republicans.

http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

If we vote "no consent" we play into the 1% hands! Vote pro alternative energy candidates!

[-] -2 points by able132 (50) 2 years ago

All the candidates - Democrat and Republican - are both "pro alternative energy" AND "pro Big Oil", you moron. It just depends on which audience they're speaking to when they get the question?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

more name calling? The dems can be made to serve the 99% on alternative energy and against big oil. Republicans are clearly against alt energy, and for oil. Repubs are still denying climate change. they are obviously too far gone. You pretend to not know this because you want us to throw our votes away and turn things over to the republicans. Why else would you pretend repubs are the same on this critical issue? Support OWS. Vote out climate change denying republicans

[-] 0 points by JoeWinters (47) 2 years ago

Why do you BREAK the forum rules with EVERY post of yours. Troll, you don't care about OWS. If you did, you wouldn't be here breaking forum rules. Have some respect.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

You are an idiot. You're punishing your own system of governance by not voting -- you're not affecting the guilty. If you want to affect the guilty, vote with your dollars -- against those companies which are aligned with bad policy.

[-] 1 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

Please read more carefully what I'm saying. You are so quick to jump down my throat and call me names. Why don't you read my last post, I am getting tired of repeating myself. You know, maybe it is a bad idea,and I knew people would say so before I posted it. Some people would say that people who hunger strike are idiots, many Occupy Wall Streeters have been called LAZY and STUPID, but they've been called it by the enemy. I'm on your side, and just trying to figure out the next step in trying to get some action. I've read some great comments and reply's and I respect and admire what's been said. I am sorry you think that I'm an idiot, but that's not adding much.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Okay, sorry friend.. :)

I just get sick of people who don't realize it's their government and get tricked into thinking it's all been co-opted. See my further reply below...

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

You're point is valid. I'm arguing against the idea of refusing to vote as a policy. Probably should still express an opinion somehow on the vote though -- write-in "NO MERIT".

This should be part of the voting protocol -- if enough people check a "no merit" box then the US should revert to a regional protocol until a worthy candidate comes forward.

[-] 0 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

Now that say's a lot more to me the dreamingforward calling me an idiot does. Dreamingforward, this is what an intelligent reply sounds like, as did DSams, and Monkeybot, and others, who I thank. I knew some people would call me names and jump down my throat , and misunderstand what I was saying.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Okay, fair response. I'm just saying that not-voting doesn't even show up on the radar. The American government, is "of, by, and for" the people so if you don't engage it, you effectively don't exist. The Constitution is held together by principles and the agreement (tacit or explicit) of its members. Find its weak spot and stalk it like a predator.

I've given several examples around the board:

Demand your right to peacably assemble and stand up against the law enforcement who are merely "protecting" some imagined "right to not be inconvenienced" or (worse) "right to profit".

I mean really, where are the constitutional lawyers willing to fight the biggest event in America's history? The President should be ashamed -- the cops on the street are having to decide because he's not leading them in protecting the constitution, so they default to what the mayor says or whomever. But stick to the principles -- allow yourself to get arrested and fight it in the courts -- this is how you keep your democracy in check. If the executive branch is asleep at the wheel (which it is), use the judicial branch in a public trial and wake the system the fuck up.

There is a legitimate argument to be made about a country founding itself on an experimental "right to property" after land runs out and population still grows. Do your research -- the "founding fathers" had no idea what would happen when the West ran out, so the consitution has simply gone out-of-date. Our financial crisis came about because as America allowed right to property, it had to fill in the gaps of a rising real estate prices with riskier loans. It has to be fixed OR allowed to fail, one or the other. But it won't be able to fail if you keep buying its products without giving it any thought.

[-] 2 points by Monkeybot (2) 2 years ago

Beth,

First off, please vote. You don't have to vote for a single politician currently in office. You could show up on election day and write in whatever you want. Many people have died so we all can have the right to vote. Second, I strongly suggest you don't make the election about one issue. I never buy the 'lesser of two evils' argument, because if you investigate candidate positions on many issues, you will clearly find someone who aligns with many of your views. Don't forfeit the process if they haven't done all we want. Finally, depending where you are, some candidates agree with you: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/15/1091876/-Wall-Street-The-New-Election-Issue-for-2012 . You may not get indictments, so support new rules and oversight. How about volunteering for those congressmen and senators who want indictments? I understand your frustration, but please vote. Progress takes time and patience, but it does happen.

[-] 1 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

If anyone can convince me to vote, it would be you. If you read my original post carefully, and if you read my replies to other coments I posted afterward, you would understand that I meant it not as a bluff but more of a threat., There will be a lot of unemployed Democrats who will vote Republican in this Election, because even though they disagree with their principles, they feel that it will boost the economy. People are desperate. I am a small business owner . My business is in zone 1 in Ground Zero. I've been in business there for 20 years. Staying in business the year following 9/11 was hard, but was a piece of cake compared to what I went through between 2008- 6/2011. The last 10 months or so have gotten better, but I know so many people who lost everything. For more then 3 years ,there wasn't a single day that I didn't worry about loosing my business and what I would do if I did. I am a single mother with 2 kids, and worked hard all my life just to have the bottom fall out. The last 2 weeks, my business was unusually slow. Maybe for no economic reason at all, but with what's going on in Europe, and after the anxiety and the fear I lived through the past few years, it was hard not to panic. What happened with the banks and the housing market took so much out of me.I can't help feeling angry and frustrated that nothing at all has been done to punish those responsible. It's not that they are just selfish , greedy people, that's bad, but unfortunately not illegal. These people committed fraud though, and because they did, theobal economy has suffered.and they have caused families to loose their jobs, their homes, their peace of mind. I know that's old news, but that's the problem. Like I wrote yesterday the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is barred from filing charges for fraud once 5 years has passed from the commission of the offense It's not about one issue, it's about frivolous law suits, mandatory arbitration clauses, outsourcing, unemployment, tax cuts for the rich, American corporations leaving the country, teachers being laid off . It's about high credit card interest rates we were told would be regulated. It's about the rich getting richer, it's about Washington DC being afraid of Wall Street, it's about the 22 grievances of Occupy Wall Street . It's about feeing powerless and wanting to feel in control again.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

If not voting for Goldman Sachs, war and twin-party way of life... then what?

A popular, democratic vote to force Congress to call an Article V Convention?

Why?

Because, simply put, corrupt twin-party politics as usual is destroying our nation and democratic values… and has been for some time. Elite, corporate and government conduct is become so egregious people are taking notice and asking the right questions. But fact is, there is no direct, democratic means for us, we the people, to challenge our own government when it becomes corrupt, despotic and tyrannical.

We ought try to change that, Constitutionally. In the 2012 elections. By presenting American voters a stark choice... either support the status-quo or oppose it. With sufficient votes, our "NO CONSENT" opposition can force Congress to issue an Article V Convention call, thereby invoking Constitutional means to propose amendments to effect changes we all agree necessary -- the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political process.

Our founders did too good a job containing “mobocracy” (which they defined as an excess of democracy) and protecting the elite. And while I am fine with private ownership, even great wealth, we must draw the line at great wealth corrupting our democracy and government, bullying the world and buying favors at our expense...

… and there is NO democratic alternative to the elite's "heads I win, tails you lose" twin-party political game?

I don't think so...

It's our Constitution, our government and our vote. It's our decision.

A Convention will not runaway from us, we wield our votes, but is capable of ripping control away from the elite, their corporations and politicians.

Many argue the right and left have been trying to call an Article V Convention for years. I think not. By all credible accounts, more than enough state petitions were tendered for Congress to call a Convention long ago. In fact, it is un-Constitutional for Congress to refuse to call one...

Tell every sitting Representative and Senator: This is our petition for redress of our grievances; either call a Convention now, before the elections, or we will withdraw our consent to be governed in your election and force the issue... Would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality of us opposed them by voting NO CONSENT in their election?

Voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite...

Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. OWS emphasizes its process. Our process, voting, is every American's Constitutional heritage and democratic obligation -- if we want politics to be more fair and democratic, we must make it so.

[-] 2 points by vagapunk (11) 2 years ago

This is a dumb idea for obvious reasons.

  1. Failing to exercise your authority in any credible way
  2. Allowing the close nit republican base to steam role elections
  3. Asking others to lay down their arms
  4. Democracy requires participation from informed citizens, which you are not.
  5. We should be voting more so candidates will run on our values, then we might find than balls to actually amend the constitution and actually fix the problem, rather than whining about it.
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Yes - david koch + charles koch + grover norquist + paul ryan are all with you


These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts +
Antonin Scalia +
Clarence Thomas +
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore

OR

Are you afraid to answer the questions -
……why do supreme court appointments make no difference ?
……why do ( roberts + alito ) = ( sotomayor + kagan ) ?
.……do you believe that President Gore would invade Iraq ?
…….do you believe that President Gore would NOT read his PDBs ?
And are you smart enough to answer these questions without changing the subject
to what you don’t like about Obama?


Just because Scalia and Thomas take koch brothers money –
you don’t have to


[Removed]

[-] 2 points by anonbankster (16) 2 years ago

In my state there is going to be three propositions on the ballot this november to raise taxes on the top 1 percent to pay for public education, outlaw capital punishment and to label GMO foods. If you think voting is a waste of time, then you are wasting a golden opportunity to add your two cents.

[-] 1 points by Coyote1983 (61) 2 years ago

We should occupy the voting booths. Just sit down in the way and not move. Just be there, in the way of anyone trying to vote for either of these fuckers.

I'm not saying actively stop anyone, just be there in the way.

It could get the government's attention pretty well, I think.

[-] 1 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

I WOULD LIKE TO POST A QUOTE MADE BY MICHAEL MOORE 9/11/11I

"Well, it's highly ironic that now over 100 of the protesters have been arrested and not a single banker, a CEO from Wall Street, anyone from corporate America — nobody, not one arrest of any of these people who brought down the economy in 2008. Who created schemes, financial schemes that not only destroyed the economy, but took away the future of this generation, of this young man and his children in the future. They have completely ruined it for people while they have become filthy rich. Not one of them arrested, but 100 of these people who have stood up non-violently against this madness, and they're arrested? This just boggles the mind."

IT DOES STILL BOGGLE MY MIND. IT IS SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE. These crimes were committed in 2008. I will say this again... The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is barred from filing charges for fraud once 5 years has passed from the commission of the offense. IT'S 2012 NOW, and the Obama Justice Department hasn't tried a single Wall Street executive in a criminal court. Our President has said, that what the world's largest investment and commercial banks did was "immoral but not illegal." . Isn't that for a JURY TO DECIDE!!

in the summer of 2008, Lehman Brothers executives promised investors that the company was sound. The bankruptcy examiner later discovered that Lehman Brothers had engaged in "actionable balance-sheet manipulation." How can that not be FRAUD. Either Obama needs a new dictionary, or he's just scared of Wall Street. Even if it wasn't FRAUD, which it was, then let them get creative. How about charging them with " CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY", since they ruined billions of lives AND FUTURES!!

The first time I ever heard of OWS, the spokesman said that they weren't going away until arrests were made. They might not be sleeping in Zuccotti Park any more, but they're still here. The MARTYRDOM in OWS, has been beaten, pepper sprayed, arrested and had a huger strike. Maybe my idea "is a dumb idea for obvious reasons" like VAGAPUNK called it, but I don't think "IDEAS" are dumb...only THE LACK OF IDEAS is dumb.I NEVER asked anyone to join me in NOT VOTING, I just asked them to join me on "NOT VOTING UNLESS". It never even occurred to me that if we made that threat , that September 13th would come and there would be no Democrats at the voting booths. I actually thought that The Obama Justice Department would take some action. Maybe that was "DUMB", but I just can't imagine that no action would be taken and they'd hand over his White House to a REPUBLICAN !I could NEVER have made that suggestion if Obama was running for office only and not running for re-election.

[-] 1 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

I'm sadly misunderstood by some, and to call me stupid is just rude, after all we're all on the same side, on the same forum, on the same website. I believe strongly in the 22 Grievances of Occupy Wall Street , God... I'm not Bill O'Reilly telling you to take a shower and get a job! Doesn't is piss you off that nobody has even been indicted yet ,for the crimes that got us where we are today. I don't get it, so many people have lost everything yet the people who committed the crimes that caused it all, are still rich and free and living the good life! We are the majority,we are THE PEOPLE, and we want them to held accountable, so what is taking so long? Maybe my idea is a bad one, maybe it's not, but at least it's an idea about how to get some political leverage. I don't believe that if we threatened boycotting the election unless we see some action, that no one will vote, I believe that it will force those who are already in power to understand that we are getting tired of waiting, and that we mean business.We know the crime, we have the evidence, and they have until election day to make the arrests or at least show us that the ball is rolling. The republicans want the government to stay out of their business, and i want their business to stay out of my government!

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The 1% want us to stay home on election day. That is why they are trying to suppress the vote with ALEC legislation. Vote out vote suppresing politicians

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Yes

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

indeed

a large portion of the population boycotting the vote could get notice

as would a large population voting on issues

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Agree somewhat, at least in spirit. What a statement Americans could make to the status quo if they would only reject the legitimate election for a corresponding one that personified a vote for direct democracy. Imagine numbers so large for the alternative election that the legitimate one is deemed illegitimate, at least in public opinion, for lack of participation, thus essentially casting doubt on a mandate and democracy itself. What President could claim a mandate via a democratic process with a voter turnout inferior in numbers to an alternative one? If nothing else is achieved, at least Americans could publicly embarrass the status quo of the same ole, same ole.

Yet, for all the talk about anarchy, rebellion or revolution, this scenario is but an illusion that will be deferred until greater numbers are faced with a plight that renders them hopeless.

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

I think you may be misunderstanding the idea of anarchy and revolution in this context. No one is calling for a French revolution, nor is anyone calling for anarchy in the sense the world is defined in our common parlance. Anarchism is a philosophy with a long intellectual tradition, and achieving a more just society through peaceful protest is a popular idea among those who identify themselves as anarchists. For instance, Gandhi was a student of the anarchist intellectual tradition, many progressives on the left have supported various aspects of the anarchist tradition over time (for example, the idea of recall elections was popular among early 20th century progressives).

Nevertheless, we vote because it's the only tiny bit of power we have. Sure, the entire system needs to be changed, I do understand the frustration that leads many people to drop out of the voting process, but overall, I do think we should vote. I do admit that it's sort of a pragmatic concession, but we should probably avoid rigid dogma (I think it's important to remain flexible and adaptable).

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Why not do the same thing in the legitimate election?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Opt-Out has never worked in the People's favor. Petition your choice for office to work for the people - spell it out.

We have to make clear that we are aware and that we are getting involved.

We have to make it clear to any and all who run for office that their free playtime is over.

They listen to us or they can be kicked to the curb like Walker and crony's in Wisconsin.

Support the people of Wisconsin in their upcoming election.

Time for the corrupt to lose and put everyone on notice that the public is done being fucked over.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by gosso920 (-24) 2 years ago

I'm George Soros, and I approve this message.

[-] 4 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Nobody believes you. Discouraging voters is hurtful to democracy. And only helps Wall st. Vote for the politicians that Wall st is against.

[-] 0 points by chile73 (-88) 2 years ago

that would mean that Romney would win. better than Obama at this point.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

Well, you aren't voting then, my friend.

[-] 0 points by amanofnoimportance (82) from Orlando, FL 2 years ago

I am going to vote for the one who brings our country crashing down the fastest.

That way, I have more of the rest of my life to prance gaily across the rubble, free of silly routines, acts, and the wiggling of paper and plastic representation of worth.

That way, I don't have to wait for anyone to "come to their senses," as I no longer hold patience for that.

Humanity will go on. Maybe they'll get it right next time.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

Voting is a right and a privilege, but it's not an obligation. I am not saying I won't vote, I want to vote, but I want proof that our votes mean something when the most popular candidate takes office. Promises are made and broken way too often. Let's at least see those in office take some action before we vote for them or their party. Let them at least begin to fulfill their promises before election day. When we vote, we aren't voting for just a president and other politicians, we're voting for their principals and values and their solutions. I have learned by now that talk is cheap, I want action. This is an opportunity to put some real pressure on our causes and this chance won't come along again for another 4 years. Billions of dollars are being spent on this election. Buying the Presidency , slandering the opposition, promising whatever is necessary to get a vote. This is a game that's been played over and over again , for far too long as far as I'm concerned. Voting hasn't worked so far, maybe not voting will., or at least the threat of it. We all want the same thing, JUSTICE ...right? I said I refuse to vote UNLESS...hopefully I will vote because!

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Sorry to disagree, but voting cannot be both a right and a privilege. Voting is our right, and therefore a democratic obligation. Others may call it responsibility, or duty, and it fits those ideals as well.

But, as an obligation, it obliges us to each other. We cooperate in our own governance, and must agree to disagree about many things, but for our Constitutional core values.

If you want your vote mean something, you must look outside the elite's twin-party "heads I win, tails you lose" political game. Though that thinking seems to be discouraged here... imagine that.

I suggest voting "NO CONSENT" in every Representative and Senator's election. Force Congress to call an Article V Convention. Support the Separation of Wealth of State.

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

Congress wouldn't really convene a constitutional convention, you'd have to get 3/4 of the states to agree to hold a convention. Congress, by 2/3 vote, can propose amendments to the constitution (which would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states).

[-] -2 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Congress is bound by the Constitution -- "shall call" -- when 34 states (2/3) apply for an Article V Convention. That threshold was reached years ago. Read the exact wording of Article V; no time limit on an application for a Convention...

Congress is acting un-Constitutionally by refusing to call an Article V Convention.

I propose we the people decide, vote, about that in 2012.

Exactly how many of us do not consent to the present conduct of the government of the United States of America?

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

If you had 3/4 of the states, congress would not be needed at all.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

True... but do you have a plan to get 3/4 of the states on-board? If not I've got a proposal about forcing Congress to call one using our votes.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Dude, if you are right that congress is acting un-constitutionally, then file a case with the court and make it public.

[-] 0 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Case was filed in federal court several years ago to force Congress to comply with Article V of the Constitution. Court ruled it was a "political" question... Might want to look up John de Herrera (believe the spelling correct) as he was involved.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Go stick your head in the sand.

Until The People of the USA stand up and participate fully in Their Democratic Process.

You are just suggesting we allow the Constitution to be stolen and Trashed by the Koch's and all of the other greedy and corrupt.

Nope sorry. You should go spend time with a supremacist group. I hear that they are quite stupid.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BethS (14) 2 years ago

Can we please leave the MUDSLINGING on the Campaign Trail ! If you're here on this forum because you believe in its principles, you are amongst friends. I knew when I first made that post it would be controversial. I also know that if Republicans are the only voters on election day, we're really screwed, but I also wasn't suggesting that we try to bluff or maybe I was. I could have suggested a hunger strike just as well. I don't want open ended promises, I want action and I want results.They need a deadline! Did you know that in many states, the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS against fraud is only 2 years from when the fraud was or should have been discovered, and that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is barred from filing charges for fraud once 5 years has passed from the commission of the offense, I might come off boldly, but I feel powerless. Do the math,, we are the majority.. What is that we have, that they want? Where is our power, and how can we use it best to to win this battle.

[-] -1 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

If not voting for Goldman Sachs, war and twin-party way of life... then what?

A popular, democratic vote to force Congress to call an Article V Convention?

Why?

Because, simply put, corrupt twin-party politics as usual is destroying our nation and democratic values… and has been for some time. Elite, corporate and government conduct is become so egregious people are taking notice and asking the right questions. But fact is, there is no direct, democratic means for us, we the people, to challenge our own government when it becomes corrupt, despotic and tyrannical.

We ought try to change that, Constitutionally. In the 2012 elections. By presenting American voters a stark choice... either support the status-quo or oppose it. With sufficient votes, our "NO CONSENT" opposition can force Congress to issue an Article V Convention call, thereby invoking Constitutional means to propose amendments to effect changes we all agree necessary -- the Separation of Wealth and State -- removal of all elite and corporate money from both electoral and representative political process.

Our founders did too good a job containing “mobocracy” (which they defined as an excess of democracy) and protecting the elite. And while I am fine with private ownership, even great wealth, we must draw the line at great wealth corrupting our democracy and government, bullying the world and buying favors at our expense...

… and there is NO democratic alternative to the elite's "heads I win, tails you lose" twin-party political game?

I don't think so...

It's our Constitution, our government and our vote. It's our decision.

A Convention will not runaway from us, we wield our votes, but is capable of ripping control away from the elite, their corporations and politicians.

Many argue the right and left have been trying to call an Article V Convention for years. I think not. By all credible accounts, more than enough state petitions were tendered for Congress to call a Convention long ago. In fact, it is un-Constitutional for Congress to refuse to call one...

Tell every sitting Representative and Senator: This is our petition for redress of our grievances; either call a Convention now, before the elections, or we will withdraw our consent to be governed in your election and force the issue... Would any candidate be seen as a legitimate Representative, Senator or President if a plurality of us opposed them by voting NO CONSENT in their election?

Voting to withdraw our consent to be governed is a Constitutional crisis for the elite...

Just because it is a peaceful revolution does not make it any less a power struggle. Nor any less effective. OWS emphasizes its process. Our process, voting, is every American's Constitutional heritage and democratic obligation -- if we want politics to be more fair and democratic, we must make it so.

[-] -3 points by DSams (-71) 2 years ago

Ah, I've acquired my very own pet... sorry it's not housebroken. Just ignore it -- it might go away.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So why do you bother replying?

Ignore me.

That does not mean I will ignore crap that you spew in trying to take down the Constitution.