Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It's multiple choice time. Which President elect would ultimately concentrate more privately held US wealth? Clinton or Romney?

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 25, 2014, 3:32 a.m. EST by StillModestCapitalist (343)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It has become crystal clear that we have a number of fiscal conservatives masquerading as disgruntled liberals here on OWS. Their diversionary tactics have become all too obvious.

Tell you what. It's multiple choice time.

I think we can all agree that regardless of how many voters turn out, America WILL ELECT a new President in 2016. So there is no need to debate if or not a single one of us should bother to cast a vote. Instead, I challenge all of you to set your detailed views, attacks, philosophies, ect aside just long enough to post a straight answer to a straight question.

Without further adieu.

If it comes down to Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney in 2016, under which President would privately held US wealth concentrate faster?

A. Hillary Clinton would ultimately concentrate more privately held US wealth.

B. Mitt Romney would ultimately concentrate more privately held US wealth.

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

Of course, I am faced with a dilemma. If I post my own answer as a comment, it will be marked down almost immediately. If I don't answer at all, I will be accused of skirting the issue myself.

Either way, I will be attacked.

Fuck it.

I say the privately held wealth of America would continue to concentrate regardless but Mitt Romney (B), would ultimately concentrate MORE privately held US wealth. Of course, this is only my opinion as a die-hard free thinker.

My answer is B. Mitt Romney would ultimately concentrate more privately held US wealth.

See that? It really is possible to give a straight answer.

A or B.

118 Comments

118 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by DNCheadquarters (69) 3 years ago

WTF is wrong with people who think it's OK to support the lessor of two evils. It's still evil !!! You are still SUPPORTING EVIL !!!

I can see someone using this as a VERY short term strategy(emphasis on VERY). But to continue that strategy long term, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, into infinity! I mean WTF??? !!!

So what's our strategy here?

  • Vote for the Super Fucked Candidate.

  • Do NOT Vote for the Super Duper Fucked Candidate.

Has anybody come up with a comprehensive quantifiable timeline for this absurd voting tactic? When does this genius plan end ?

1 decade?, 2 decades?, 3 decades ? 100 YEARS ???

What's the end game???
. .

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

This is what we get for allowing the greater evil to secure more power.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/01/1348659/-Economists-don-t-think-Republican-jobs-bills-would-create-jobs-Again-Still?detail=email

http://www.iberianet.com/forum/republicans-back-to-raising-taxes-on-the-poor/article_3f7f50fa-7c70-11e4-8f02-c7e9b2ebf430.html?mode=jqm

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2014/12/08/gop-seeks-to-ease-regulations-on-spending-bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-bolstered-by-gop-wins-work-to-curb-environmental-rules/2014/12/07/3ef05bc0-79b9-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-mestrich/3-banking-regulations-we-_b_6288816.html

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/energy-companies-contribute-to-republican-state-attorneys-general-who-then-fight-pollution-regulation-141209?news=855048

http://www.claiborneprogress.net/news/opinion_columns/150724651/EPA-in-the-crosshairs-of-new-Republican-majority

http://m.ibtimes.com/lawmakers-attach-wall-street-deregulation-omnibus-bill-1747742

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120508/house-floor-votes-against-environment-113th-congress

http://priceofoil.org/2014/12/08/dirty-energy-money-fuels-fight-climate/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/fossil-fuels-Obama-EPA-climate/2014/12/08/id/611737/

By the way, I see you conservative posers have been marking down my older comments again in order to reduce my overall user rating. That's fine. From now on, I will post the following link with each comment.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-readers-beware-our-site-has-been-taken-over-by/

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8778) from Phoenix, AZ 3 years ago

Your game ends with more GOP in office congrats on your big win defeating them evil Dems!

[-] 2 points by conservatroll (187) 3 years ago

I accept your congrats but question your assumed cause. The GOP won because things have not improved much for the 99%. The misadministration continues to cater to Big Business and warmongering. Not many un/under employed low skilled citizens see a benefit to welcoming more of the same from central America. In short, the GOP ass whoopin was a repudiation of the progressive agenda as implemented by The One.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8778) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Were you perhaps a little late to civics class? The GOP won because they got the most votes, winning elections is the result of people voting, the GOP won because they got more votes there are many people who vote and many who don't each make their decision, many come here to influence people to not vote for the Dems those people won the day this past election and will have their will express by the GOP in the next congress

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 2 years ago

I see. All the people who are better off than they were 6 yrs ago were talkd into staying home on election day because they come to this web site and were convinced to not vote? Gotcha. Good thing I wasn't hanging around here in early Nov.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8778) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

many here do promote the don't vote message, and it is the accumulation of each person's actions that create what is, whether that be the largest GOP majority in the House in over 83 years or some other result no one action can be credited nor can any be forgot....when the results come in

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

You're deliberately avoiding the absolute reality.

Again, we WILL be faced with a multiple but very limited choice in two years. A Democrat or Republican WILL be elected President in 2016. We may end up with Clinton or Romney. Not both. ONE or the OTHER.

Therefore, the question damn well is legitimate.

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

[-] 1 points by conservatroll (187) 3 years ago

Yes, the answer IS A or B. Shake em up in a bag and it doesn't matter which one falls out.

[-] 0 points by DNCheadquarters (69) 3 years ago

SMC, are you aware of where you are here?

You are on the Occupy wall St forum asking Occupiers to vote for corrupt, duopoly, bankster financed candidates!!! To choose between THE two establishment political parties that have been the source of most of the 99%'s despair !!!

Are you $@#÷×&¥$#@ kidding !!! Seriously? I mean $×@#£&÷÷×#ing SERIOUSLY !!!!???

Do you REALLY want me to tell you what to do with your "pick only A or B" duopoly D/R choices ???

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Why did you show up here in the midterm election year of 2014 with a name like DNCheadquarters? Seriously. No stupid jokes or diversionary BS. Just answer the question. Why would someone supposedly hellbent against the very concept of Democracy call themselves DNCheadquarters? No excuses. Just answer the question. Of all the names you could have come up with in this midterm election year of 2014, why DNCheadquarters?

Take up a chair everyone. DNCheadquarters is going to dance for us.

A one, a two, a one two three.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

That is a lie. 'There is no 'Dancers National Commitee headquarters'.

Try again poser.

Why did you show up here in the midterm election year of 2014 with a name like DNCheadquarters? Seriously. No stupid jokes or diversionary BS. Just answer the question. Why would someone supposedly hellbent against the very concept of Democracy call themselves DNCheadquarters? No excuses. Just answer the question. Of all the names you could have come up with in this midterm election year of 2014, why DNCheadquarters?

Take up a chair everyone. DNCheadquarters is going to dance for us.

A one, a two, a one two three.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I say its A & B. (Yes there is a third answer to your question.) I believe this is the answer because those entities running for U.S. President are but quislings to those really in power. U.S. President is a position that these days is not one found by electing a person who can best lead, but selecting the one who best takes orders. As to under which Prez wealth will concentrate faster, the question is totally irrelavent. Those decisions are not made by the Prez. The Prez only does what he is told.

The only real question is, who works better while on their knees? I bet that would be Hillary. She seems to cherish the position.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Its utterly insane to debate which puppet will be blamed as concentrate more American wealth in a global economy to begin with.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (1718) 0 minutes ago

Getting people out and in the streets lends itself to the solutions naturally, as the people are now involved, out in the community, and active.

OccupyForever

This is the most important step, as it is the first. What comes next is up to the people, when they get involved, they tend to figure it out.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

So that - THAT - "is" all you have to offer as a plan of action = Opt OUT complain loudly in the streets and everything will be fine - Because people will figure it out. Lame - starved for air - lame.

At least if you and others had forwarded a campaign to remove ALEC members from government - that - would have been "something" - hell you and yours have not promoted "any" action that would change out the configuration of our currenly corrupted government.

You just say opt out ( let the blatantly evil gain a firmer hold on government ) and whine about it in the streets - and things will get better - because - it just will.

What Might Shadzsixsixtysix refer to you as? Oh - right - a numpty.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

^ This right here is the mindset of someone who has given up on humanity, has no faith in the people, and is most likely the same type of personality that claims occupy is a failure, go get a job, protesting is whining, etc.

No clue on political organizing, never read much less studied any x, salinski, etc.

Get out and make noise, get active, get to know your local activists... This is what creates change. Those who are waiting for the perfect plan never act on much of anything. They just wait. History never remembers them, because they are not memorable.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Change does not happen without action - protest without actions to take in support - is a waste of time and energy - "is" a waste of time - because no actions are being taken to make change happen.

I don't care how loud you are or how big of a crowd you draw - if you take no action - you accomplish nothing - nothing other than venting.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You have some half points there, but are failing to understand the process by which most of this stuff happens... To think rallying people together is somehow ever a waste of time, getting people involved, getting them together, creating unity... to not understand how that more times than not leads to positive things...

I deal with people all the time that want these detailed plans, all hte details hashed out, etc... process to death, total one man bureaucracies.. its insane. Meanwhile the go getters are lapping them.

If you want some political action plan to accompany a protest, thats fine. Present one, go there and put it together, get the signatures or whatever, try to organize people into something more formal. Its all good.

Just dont sit there and tell all of those frustrated people out there trying to make their voices heard that they are whining and wasting their time.

Actually, ya know what, Id love to be there when you told that crowd that.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

The first step toward making change is getting people to realize there is something they should shout about. The second step is getting them to doing the shouting. And, after that, change comes. OWS was hugely successful in changing the conversation in this country and making class consciousness something in the forefront of the minds of the American people like it never was before. Change will come, but it will take time because, to be honest, we waited too long in this country to begin the shouting. Solidarity, turbo, and thanks for all you've done here over the past several years.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You too BW

OccMiami has shut down I95. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupymia

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

I just saw that on twitter. Awesome. Also, if Occupy Wall Street didn't make the revolution happen overnight, two major things were the cause, 1. America was not ready for direct democracy and the General Assemblies were very poorly received and 2. the police takedown of Occupy.

Now, imagine if the police had allowed Occupy to protest the way they are allowing the "I Can't Breathe" and "Hands Up Don't Shoot" protests. Who knows what might have happened. Recall when OWS tried to cross the Brooklyn Bridge, 700 protesters were arrested. Big difference. We'll see what happens.

Also, just another thought, I wish people could connect the dots because Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes in an attempt to survive after losing his job as a horticulturist with the City of New York. Since 2008 NYC has eliminated over 16,000 jobs. There are connections here, to banksters and to the military industrial complex. Who do the police get their power from in the first place?

[-] 4 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Exactly, the police are just the strong arm of the corrupt in bad times. If this thing picks up steam, Im expecting the same thing from the government that has always happened- violence on their side, eventually some on ours, then over arching over reaction on their part.

Gotta love those 20 minute ramblings by people in GA's about their own personal experiences lol.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

I agree with you. We'll just have to wait and see. But bravo to all these people out in the streets. I am so proud of them.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

True, the media who works for the 1%, the wealthy and powerful corporations, that control the minds of the American people.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

After some thinking, if the libertarians and some on the right start to get on board with the protests, then we are starting to have unity, and once again, the police will have to break it up.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

Yes, the more involved and the scarier it becomes to TPTB the sooner they will crack down. Important thing to remember is that Occupy Wall Street was striking right at the belly of the beast and that was just entirely unacceptable from the get go by TPTB so the crackdown was almost immediate. With these police protests TPTB think that if they let people let out steam it will all peter out. Again, we'll have to wait and see, but you make a good point. And, evidently even GWB has said something about how unbelievable it was to have the video of Garner's death and no indictment.

[-] 6 points by elf3 (3778) 3 years ago

The media is paying attention to all of this because Americans have reached a breaking point...they are pissed at Wall Street....they are about ready to jump out of the pot because they finally feel the water boiling...and this stuff is horrifyingly divisive. These race issues are completely dividing the Occupy fight. It is alienating the working class. I mean they watch shows like Pawn Shop, pay attention to crime rates ( I barely know anyone who hasn't had their identity stolen) which traces back to poor black areas like Miami Ghetto. Then they see how much stuff they have in their grocery carts as they pull out and wave around their ebt while they can barely feed their kids working 6 jobs. If you're gonna get mad get mad pick your battles...because the moment you take the focus off wallstreet...tptb are going to run with it ( just look at all this coverage) when was the last time they gave a shit about the matters of us peasants? I hunted and searched for Occupy news and maybe in all of those protests got to see half a minute ( and they would not scan back and show the crowd.) But I swear I've seen more footage of Ferguson than even any war...ever. This is tactical...wall street feels the heat and they are diverting it..."blame someone else America ( how about those people over there)"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-prices-soar-as-incomes-stand-still/

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

I agree. Connecting the dots back to Wall Street is critical. Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes trying to survive in the underground economy after losing his job as a horticulturist with the City of New York. The City of New York has eliminated 16,000 jobs since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. It is all connected back to the banksters.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

"identity theft" is some big company claiming you owe them because they were fooled

[-] 1 points by 99time (92) 3 years ago

It's not too hard to come up with a simple logic to bring most together out of this divisive issue. All we have to do is explain that anyone can be killed unjustly by police -- black people get killed most often, but too many white people get killed too. When we do something about police brutality, we protect everyone.

[+] -5 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

I have to try to be nice to you, because it sounds like you are just so incredibly naive, but my gut tells me you are an SSS fraud.

The first protests against the Michael Brown murder WERE met with MILITARIZED Ferguson Police response, to the horror of the Public. Don't you remember??? Or are you trying to deceive us???

Anyway, that's why they, cops, are being nice, now. People loved OWS anti-1%, pro-99% revolt (especially after the 1%-RW-GOP coup d'etat in Wisconsin), but the public got sick and tired quick of non-partisan, anti-political Woodstock reenactments, drum circles, and bum encampments that OWS became. Tried and tried in vane to tell OWS PR is important.

A proper comparison would be with the gun-tote'n TeaBaggers or Cliven Bundy fiascoes!! The Cops work for the Donors, the 1%. They are also, in the campaign to militarize them, are dosing with steroids, which makes them crazy!!!!

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

You are an f-ing idiot. I'm talking about the RECENT protests, you moron! Not the initial ones. What is wrong with you? Don't bother being nice to me, it's not necessary. And, I'm not Shadz66 so f--k off!

Okay, just noting with this edit, that you edited your comment. You are such a fraud. You added the "Anyway....." on bit after I replied.

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

right on! i like it when you get pissed - that way i don't feel like such an idiot when i get pissed. you are usually so cool and nice. they are annoying - and why are they here - i don't get it.

[-] 0 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

define acronyms below

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

why ask me i didn't write it?? i think he is referring to shadz 66 -sss not sure you should ask him. seems a bit of a wanker though

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

Hey "flip," we're hear to represent the 99% plight, against the 1% perpetrating it. What on earth are you here for? Another SSS puppet? To aid and abet the 1%? What have you done? Why do you hate America?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22801) 3 years ago

You are here to represent the status quo.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

ha ha - nice - why do i hate america. now who does that sound like - hannity or some other right wing nut job. no i am here to support obama and hillary and their fight for the 99%. too bad they can't find any of us on their rolodex - i wonder who is on there. can you guess? probably not the 1% seems to me but the .1% maybe even .01%. too bad they couldn't find time to put on some nice walking shoes and walk with us like he promised, should we walk through the other promises - no you don want to do that do you? maybe just the one about nukes - that's a good one also. i am wondering whose side you are on - occupy or obama since you cannot be on both - FOIA Revelations Show Administration Role In Occupy Crackdown by joe shikspack

DHS documents were released to Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) that despite extensive redactions reveal a greater administration role than previously known in the crackdown on the Occupy movement.

The release is described on the PCJF website:

Homeland Security Documents Show Massive Nationwide Monitoring of Occupy Movement Documents just obtained by the PCJF from its FOIA request show massive nationwide monitoring, surveillance and information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and local authorities in response to Occupy. The PCJF, also on behalf of author/filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee, has made a series of FOIA demands regarding law enforcement involvement in the Occupy Crackdown. ...

This set of released materials reveals intense involvement by the DHS' National Operations Center (NOC) in these activities. The DHS describes the NOC as, "the primary national-level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management. The NOC is the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room and DHS Leadership for domestic situational awareness and facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental operation centers and the private sector."

Documents are available in 3 pdfs here, here and here.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

oh and by the way - thanks for making me look this up - it's a good post don't you think. some things are worth repeating - no?

[+] -4 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

OH, you can't read now. OK. I really think you're an SSS ploy / fraud to show blithering innocence. BW is the perfect pseudo for a vile SSS. The Pollyanna opposite of a wanton & rapacious Koch-sucking SSS whore.

WTF is flip flipping out about? BW, you're really politically challenged, liberal progressives like myself are trying to throw off the 1% tyranny status quo, the Non-Voters and Cons are working to keep it. You've been played, sweety. And neither of you fools have "reply" options, so start a new comment. Or go read Howard Zinn's A People's History.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

No I never stated that getting people together to take action was a waste of time - I did state however that to have no plans of action to participate in beyond just venting anger and disgust in the streets - is a largely wasted effort. The civil rights movement had clear goals to accomplish - voting to affect change being a top goal. To be purposeless in the streets is a waste of time and energy.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You don't really understand how those movements went back then either then, and if you think everyone who was rioting and shooting and bombing thought voting was the answer back then, again, you need to study more.

It was before my time, but if significant leaders were stating that voting for change is not the answer, Im going to assume that significant amounts of the people there agreed.

But ya know what, they got some victories. Thats what movements do. They gather people and generate energy. For you to think that groups without some formal document is largely a waste of time only shows your poor understanding of political history, much less organizing in the 21st century.

Now go tell everyone they are just whining in the streets.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Civil Rights Movement: An Overview | Scholastic.com www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/civil-rights-movement-overview

The civil rights movement was a mass popular movement to secure for African ... They pursued their goals through ... three civil rights workers ...

The civil rights movement was a mass popular movement to secure for African Americans equal access to and opportunities for the basic privileges and rights of U.S. citizenship. Although the roots of the movement go back to the 19th century, it peaked in the 1950s and 1960s. African American men and women, along with whites, organized and led the movement at national and local levels.

They pursued their goals through legal means, negotiations, petitions, and nonviolent protest demonstrations (see pacifism and nonviolent movements).

The civil rights movement was largest social movement of the 20th century in the United States. It influenced the modern women's rights movement and the student movement of the 1960s.

The civil rights movement centered on the American South. That was where the African American population was concentrated and where racial inequality in education, economic opportunity, and the political and legal processes was most blatant. Beginning in the late 19th century, state and local governments passed segregation laws, known as Jim Crow laws; they also imposed restrictions on voting qualifications that left the black population economically and politically powerless.

The movement therefore addressed primarily three areas of discrimination: education, social segregation, and voting rights. The Brown Decision

The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas ushered in a new era in the struggle for civil rights. This landmark decision outlawed racial segregation in public schools. Whites around the country condemned the decision. In the South such white supremacist groups as the Ku Klux Klan and the Citizens' Council organized to resist desegregation, sometimes resorting to violence. A primary target of supremacist groups was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

Over the course of decades the NAACP had filed a succession of court cases, including Brown, and had assumed the lead in the national struggle against segregated education. The oldest established national civil rights organization, the NAACP also played an important role at the local level; blacks across the South organized branches to combat discrimination in their communities.

One of the first attempts to comply with the Brown decision came in Arkansas's capital city, Little Rock, in 1957. It was prompted in part by the work of the Arkansas NAACP and its president, Daisy Bates. When the local school board admitted nine black students to the city's previously all-white Central High School, white protests escalated into violence; as a result President Dwight D. Eisenhower dispatched federal troops to protect the black students. A later high-profile case involved Alabama governor George Wallace. In 1963 he attempted to block black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama. The Challenge to Social Segregation

By the time of the Little Rock incident, the nation had already become aware of the heightened struggle in the South. In 1955 blacks in Montgomery, Ala., organized a boycott of city buses in protest of the policy of segregated seating. Instigated by Rosa Parks, the boycott lasted 381 days; it succeeded in integrating the seating. It also led to the formation in 1957 of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), in Atlanta, Ga. This was presided over by a local black minister, Martin Luther King, Jr. As SCLC head, King would later become a central leader in the larger civil rights movement.

A major incident in 1960 led to the founding of another important organization and expanded the movement's participants to include college-age blacks. In that year, four students from the all-black North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College initiated sit-ins at a segregated Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C. Students from other southern black colleges and universities followed with similar sit-ins, bringing about the desegregation of several hundred lunch counters. During the sit-ins the young protesters organized the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (seeSNCC).

Soon thereafter, many SNCC members joined forces with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Founded in Chicago in the 1940s, CORE organized the Freedom Rides of 1961. Black and white Freedom Riders boarded commercial buses in Washington, D.C., and embarked on a route through the South; their objective was to test the 1960 Supreme Court decision Boynton v. Virginia, which had outlawed segregation in interstate transportation terminals. Riders were beaten, arrested, and in one instance had their bus burned. Nevertheless, the Freedom Rides were ultimately successful, prompting the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce the ruling in Boynton.

The SNCC also organized local campaigns with NAACP branches to win voting rights for blacks and to end segregation in public places. One community that made the national spotlight was Albany, Ga. In 1962, King and the SCLC entered the Albany struggle. It failed to gain significant results, however, and branded King with a humiliating defeat.

The nation's focus then turned to Birmingham, Ala. Since 1956, the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth of the Alabama ChristianMovement for Human Rights had been leading the struggle against racial discrimination there. For decades, local blacks had faced a staunch segregationist in the person of Eugene "Bull" Connor, the city's commissioner of public safety; he was chiefly responsible for Birmingham's reputation as the "most thoroughly segregated city in the United States." King arrived in the spring of 1963 and with Shuttlesworth led nonviolent demonstrations. Connor's use of police dogs and fire hoses against protesters, an act that remains infamous, helped awaken President John Kennedy's administration to the need for civil rights legislation.

Following Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson maneuvered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. Representing a major victory for African Americans, the 1964 legislation outlawed segregation in public places and prohibited racial and gender discrimination in employment practices. Voting Rights

By the mid-1960s, however, most eligible black voters in the South remained disfranchised. Following World War II, African Americans initiated local efforts to exercise the right to vote but faced strong and sometimes violent resistance from local whites. Organized initiatives to enfranchise blacks climaxed with the Summer Project of 1964. Popularly known as Freedom Summer, it came under the auspices of the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), which included the SCLC, the SNCC, CORE, and the NAACP. Targeting Mississippi, where in many counties no blacks were registered to vote, COFO launched a massive and largely unsuccessful voter-registration drive. White resistance was widespread and included several killings. (In one particularly notable case, three civil rights workers disappeared on June 21, and their bodies were found on August 4; a federal court convicted seven individuals in connection with the murders in 1967, but the state of Mississippi did not prosecute the case until 2005, when one 80-year-old man was convicted of manslaughter.) The voter-registration effort did, however, capture the attention of many lawmakers, who began calling for federal voting-rightslegislation.

Such legislation was enacted following events in Selma, Ala. King and the SCLC went there in February 1965, hoping to boost a languishing voting-rights drive that had been organized by the SNCC and local blacks. After two failed attempts, King led an 87-km (54-mi) march from Selma to Montgomery. Three activists lost their lives during the Selma demonstrations, but in August 1965, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Black Power

By this time, civil rights activists were turning their attention to race discrimination in the urban North and West. Many younger activists, discontented with the slow process of change, were also becoming more militant. The SNCC, for instance, in 1966 replaced its chair, John Lewis, with the more radical Stokely Carmichael. Carmichael expanded SNCC operations beyond the South and helped popularize the concept of "black power." Advocates of black power favored African Americans' controlling the movement, exercising economic autonomy, and preserving their African heritage. Most controversial were the call for racial separatism and the principle of self-defense against white violence. These tenets were contrary to the ideals of more traditional activists who favored racial integration and passive resistance. A leading group within the black-power struggle was the Black Panthers. Organized in Oakland, Calif., in 1966 by Bobby Seale and Huey P.Newton, it included among its members the activist and writer Eldridge Cleaver. Probably the best-known figure within the radical wing of the civil rights movement was Malcolm X. He emerged from but broke with the Nation of Islam, also known as the Black Muslims. By the mid-1970s, however, the black-power movement had faded. It never gained the support of the larger African American populace. The Movement Legacy

As late as 1969, 15 years after Brown, only 1 percent of the black students in the Deep South were attending public schools with whites. After a series of legal cases in the late 1960s, the federal courts finally dismantled segregated schools. They required school districts to implement plans, such as school-district rezoning, that would bring black and white schoolchildren and faculty under one roof. In 1971 the Supreme Court upheld school busing as a viable means of meeting integration goals.

By this time—after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968; the rise of black militancy; and discernible gains in black employment opportunities—the civil rights movement had begun losing momentum. Observers maintain that themovement has a mixed legacy. It produced major legislation that reformed American society. It opened up new political, social, and economic opportunities to blacks. Veterans of the movement, however, lament that it fell short of addressing the economic needs of poor Americans.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Voting Rights Act of 1965,

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the American Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

the Act allowed for a mass enfranchisement of racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9]

The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate the administration of elections. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2, for instance, prohibits any state or local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Additionally, the Act specifically outlaws literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials.

Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in the most egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.[12]

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Of course the USDJ calls it the most effective, while massive imprisonment and inequality continue to surge in the cities... I would expect nothing more from them.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/07/5-facts-about-economic-inequality/

X thought that "voter registration without voter education" was a waste of time, among other interesting things. You should read some of his books, he very clearly saw that waiting on the government for rights- a bunch of white people mind you- is not an ideal situation.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

What you are missing (?) is the fact of a list of goals and a program to forward those goals. This was not protest for protests sake - it was protest with specific goals in mind and actions organized to present those goals.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Of course it seems like that in hindsight

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Hindsight has nothing to do with it. Hindsight did not create the goals of the movement nor did Hindsight organize the protest actions taken. The goals and the organizing around those goals has nothing to do with Hindsight. The goals and the organization around those goals - is - just what it is = FACT.

And here is a real groaner "for you" - petitions were part of the organization and action of the protests as was taking legal action.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Every action with significant numbers has petitioners going around, thats the back end operations. Thats why I asked you if that was usually your role. Thats the group that will show up and attempt to organize into political action, vs social action. Thats how it goes. Thats the given after people start organizing and showing up.

And that is why getting people moving is the most important and the hardest thing to do, and why usually once that starts to happen the rest kind of just follows.

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

It was not before my time, I saw it, every single night, on the news. The revolution WAS televised, and people Voted accordingly!! That's how we accomplished CHANGE, REFORM and PROGRESS!!!!!

The RepubliCons took notice, and in their hamfisted, Media-Monopoly, false-equivalency ways, managed to BRAINWASH enough people to either Vote lock-step with them or FORFEIT their rights to participate in our democracy. Equally sad, disgusting and hard to believe.

Nice going Non-Voters, you made YOUR REAL ENEMY, the 1%-Cons, very VERY happy. Stupid is too good for you!

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

We all lost this past election regardless. As soon as the boomers are done with their love affair of Dems and Reps, the ship can be straightened.

The new open source economy is going to just about render government meaningless. Its already happening. Every year that goes by, the technology gets better, the information gets out, and people start waking up.

Its just a select few old goats on each side that cant understand the trend.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

Words of wisdom from the Cliven Bundy of Unicorn Ranchers!

Lets all pray to Darwin that your Peter Pan future never dawns, for a Captain Hook treasure chest full of political reality reasons.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

The shift is happening as we speak, your loyalty blinds you. Not just from the shift, but the murder, gore and starvation you are willing to endorse in order win.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

i do not think his loyalty blinds him - it is either his stupidity or he knows the truth but is a quisling. my wife has trouble looking at the reality of the dems - but she is not dishonest like they are. it is their lack of real discussion which points to the fact that they are paid hacks. what else can explain it?

[-] -3 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

Oh, thanx for opening another comment with fresh "reply." But: You're a fucking idiot and a waste of time. You're the quisling and quite the specious political babbler. No explanation of the "Shift." or whatever you weren't saying clearly. Just a change of subject and statistic challenge, how original. Laissez Faire governance, Enron, 9-11, Wall Street Inside Job, the massive world wide repercussions, the War on Terror, should have halted your wonder years ago over "who who was the bigger mass murderer" and robber! But only if facts, not subterfuge, were your concern. and who the hell are you talking to? voices in your head?

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

It's so hard to keep track of you knuckleheads, what are you talking about PP? I would love to endorse nothing but peace and harmony, but we have this nasty reality thing to contend with. Maybe you don't, but that would be a completely personal delusion, like religion, and you should keep stuff like that to yourself. Realize this, the morons who elected & reelected W ~ directly or indirectly by not Voting ~ caused more "murder, gore and starvation," among many other losses in blood and treasure, than any ruthless dictator could ever dream of. What nonsense has been shoved in your head? Please tell me.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

who was the bigger mass murderer do you think - w or clinton. can you give me some numbers and since you are into reality can you document what you write (actually i expect you will dodge the question since you are a partisan hack not a reality based thinker). then maybe you can give me some numbers for dead innocents from teh years of your beloved obama. could you do that mr hard headed realist - probably not.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Wow, here we go with the ALEC obsession again. Ironic, seems how you vote for the corporations that make it up http://occupywallst.org/forum/alec-board-members/

So now protesting is whining in the streets. Got ya.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Protest is nothing without action - but - whining in the streets. Protesting "with" action is getting involved to take over the processes of government (State & Federal).

But you present no actions to take in support of protest - to get anything accomplished.

So yeah - your version of no action taking protest - "is" just whining in the streets.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You have no clue of the power of people, the power of numbers, and how things tend to gel when you get that going.

Its why the state always shuts it down. Its why the state shut down Occupy. Actually the very groups of people you think are on your side helped to shut us down.

At this point me arguing with someone like you about organizing is pretty funny. Im not here to tell you specifically what solutions need to be proposed to each problem, but I do know what works in terms of generating energy and hence action, and what doesnt.

So would you be the guy running around the crowd getting signatures on your petition?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

You have no clue of the power of people, the power of numbers, and how things tend to gel when you get that going.

BTW - the power of large numbers of people getting together in protest getting things done. Well lets look at that for a second. You feel that opting out is an acceptable form of protest. OK - this last election - it is estimated that 2/3 of eligible voters opted out. What exactly did that accomplish? It accomplished this = a stronger representation in government of those who are "actively" attacking the 99%.

Huh - call me crazy - but - that is not my idea of a good result to protesting.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I suppose you would be the one passing out the Molotov cocktails?

Is that the action you hope to see with protest being the only action taken?

Because it seems that that is what you are trying to get across without actually stating it.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You know what I want to come out of protest? Whatever the people decide should.

I have more than enough of my opinions, but Im not a big enough jack ass to think my solutions are the only ones that should be considered.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

You have offered no solutions to be considered - you just say we gotta get out in the streets and be loud because that will get things (unstated) done. Sorry but that seems - to me - to make you a huge jackass.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

[-] 5 points by DNCheadquarters (69) 3 years ago

Choices A and B are wrong.

C, D, E and F are wrong choices too. So is X, Y and Z.

The only right choice is choice "P". P stands for The People.

Let's cut out the corrupt middleman and start representing ourselves.

  • 95% of society can be governed scientifically and objectively. It is mostly methodical and straight forward. It's not voodoo.

  • 5 % of society is more subjective and issues should be debated and decided by the citizens, not corrupt demoCRAPs and repugnantCONs. Such as healthcare, social security, TPP, trade policies that harm our sovereign/economic interests of the 99%, offensive/pre-empted wars that the 99% must suffer from and the 1% profit from, limits on accumulated debt, etc. We The People should be deciding issues that can harm and/or enslave us.

  • establish National Referendums so the public can vote on the most pressing new issues.

  • Reinstitute a true Free Press. Ban corporations or politically oriented entities from owning or influencing the news media. Voting in itself is NOT a powerful act, only voting done by a well informed public is powerful.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

I have become the primary target of every single conservative on this site. Several of which are using multiple IDs in order to masquerade as disgruntled liberals.

I must be doing something right.

Mark mark mark with your multiple IDs!

Next.

[-] 0 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

.Thanks for that post in which YOU (a Party Voting Man) feels victimized, as it reminds me of another tactic that the neocons use often, and I saw it on YouTube too, I beleive. And it is used widely to further Friedman's adopted agenda, and as usual it ends up screwing the 99% again.

The tactic which I unfortunately admit has worked well for them is called repitition, and the idea is...if you keep saying it, no matter how perilous, illogical or untrue the words are...that it will become true ..eventually. It is not difficult for me to see that you are a disciple of this tactic or principle.

Now, what were you accusing Occupiers of AGAIN, and do YOU reckon they are "masquerad..[ing]" themselves AGAIN.... and what is the ideology that you reckon that they ascribe to....AGAIN?!?

I cant help of thinking of a simple old adage when I think of YOU. It is, If it looks like a duck...If it sounds like a duck..And if it walks like a duck..then it is a...

Your BS may have worked in 2011, and early in 2012, but not now.....

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

[ EDIT ] Replying - HERE - you have not offered a plan to get past the duopoly - so far all I have seen you offer is TO OPT OUT - which only gives the greatest evil a free hand to accelerate the fall of the environment and all life on the planet.

Fine You do not like the duopoly ( neither do I ) - now present a path forward past the duopoly.

Do something proactive - Hey?

EDIT -> You are going to times square? Why? Since you are all about the protest and have nothing to offer past protesting (apparently) - go to 30 Rock instead - and - Burn Down The Christmas Tree in a real protest against hypocrisy.

Make sure to place your catheter and collection bag so that you do not overwhelm your diaper too early in the evening.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Honestly? I have no idea ( at this point in time ) as to what you are about or as to what you mean.

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

What's your opinion mdonelly? Which President elect would ultimately concentrate more wealth? Clinton or Romney?

[-] -1 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

Yes I offered YOU actually two "plans." Don't YOU remember where I basically said that I was NOT going to hang with "pessimistic" people who think we can vote our way out of this, or people who were satisfied with the scraps. I haven't caved in the rest of my life, why should I now? Do you? (rhetorical, so there is no need to answer that)

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

You have said what you will not be doing. That's your plan? That's It? You gonna find yourself a cave and hunker down till all of society has died? Or What? You gotta have more to your plan than just opting out.

[-] 0 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

I would bet money that your idea of being active is what most people would call being sedientary. And you think that you will be safe in your "cave" getting out occasionly to vote?

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

And if something is true, it remains true no matter how many times it is repeated or denied. The truth doesn't care what is said about it. It remains true regardless.

It has become all too obvious. For some time now, we have had a number of fiscal conservatives posing as disgruntled liberals here and using multiple IDs in order to offset the potential influence of OWS on liberal voters. The idea from day one, as proven four weeks ago, has been to keep more liberals home on voting day as conservatives run the political board.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Like I've been saying for nearly a decade, nothing will save us. The very concept of extreme personal wealth has already gone too far. It has corrupted virtually all of Western Society. The wealth is already far too concentrated. It will continue to concentrate causing the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. Eventually, the fall of modern society.

But all of the above can be slowed down by voting against conservatives. This has been proven already. Obama, although corrupt like every other politician, did manage to delay the Greater Depression by several years already.

I wish we had another FDR to vote for. That would give us a real shot to avoid the upcoming Greater Depression. Unfortunately, we don't. We never will.

We have no choice but to read, inform, protest, spend down, and VOTE against the greater evil. Assuming we can tread water for another two years, that should buy us a little more time to prepare ourselves.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

So - "I" will ask again.

Besides opting out and handing government over to the corp(se)oRATions gift wrapped and tied with a bow.

What exactly is your plan of action?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

A plus 4 - and - you have stated no plan - nothing. Gosh nothing is SOoooo popular - Hey? Who woulda thunk it?

[-] 0 points by spinoza34 (400) 3 years ago

Replying here. I "try to shit on people,"?? I assume that you mean by "people .... offer[ing] actions" that YOU really mean voting us in some more Democrats. Your new semantecs are funny.

If YOU think that this is about voting for either of the corrupt two parties, YOU are wrong!!

If YOU don't believe me, come to Times Square tonight and you will be able to see the difference, and I will be happy to explain it personally too. Don't forget to change your Depends before you leave.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

[ EDIT ] Cut? By What? You offer nothing but try to shit on people who do try to offer actions to take. Hell you couldn't have been using a butter knife - Sharp? - Shirley you jest. Honing your skill? Try to offer a plan of action to move forward. As So far you have offered nothing except insults.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

So basically - you got nothing - right? Funny your plan for future success is every bit as detailed as the ones the corp(se)oRATists in office have for recovering the economy and creating jobs etc etc etc etc = a title and no substance - OH except that what the corp(se)oRATists have offered has more substance - it has nothing to do with creating good paying jobs though - and has everything to do with letting the wealthy hoover up more from the economy. Well - at least you have not emulated them so far as to offer opposite speak - as - so far you have offered up nothing.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

how about if i tell you first what will not solve our problems - voting for hillary - can we at least agree on that. as far as what will you shouldn't need me to tell you - just read howard zinn. and why would you and your toadies remove spinoza34's comment - that was like the worst days of shooz

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

[-] 1 points by flip (7088) 22 minutes ago

You mean like in 08. Didn't you read my rant. I told you how to proceed. Now get off the internet and get on with it. If you are getting people out to vote I support that. If you are here telling us to vote you are not helping

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

So - according to the little (next to nothing) that you have stated about what people should do = opt out and just protest ( that is correct isn't it? - that is basically all you are saying so far - Right?). You feel good about that as your plan of action?

No you need not respond to this comment - as all you will say - is - look at what I (you) have not said in the past - as it seems you can not be bothered to list the things that you would propose as action for the public to take - you just say "look at what I have said in the past". I contend that you have said very little and you prove my point in your inability to state your action plan.

So keep dancing.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

this is what i wrote - "second read a history book (as you know i would suggest howard zinn ) - or ask an activist - someone who actually does something. they know how to change the world - it is hard work plain and simple. go door to door - organize meetings - but not VOTING of HILLARY" - .assumed it would be enough for you but apparently not. i said nothing about opting out - organize and agitate - if you read howard zinn you will find out how we ended slavery - go tthe 8 hour work day and civil right for blacks - to some extent anyway. i have never said to anyone do not vote. what i do think is that if we ever get someone worth voting for - and that would not be hillary or people like obama and clinton. fdr said it - "After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - you are a democratic toadie and you ban people for no reason - now your turn - answer that.

[-] -3 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Getting people out and in the streets lends itself to the solutions naturally, as the people are now involved, out in the community, and active.

OccupyForever

This is the most important step, as it is the first. What comes next is up to the people, when they get involved, they tend to figure it out.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

Replying here to your last rant - er - comment.

Why don't you instead of stating what won't work - state what will work. I don't want to see Hitlary as the next POTUS - neither do I want to see Mittens as the next POTUS.

So - instead of ducking the question - why don't you state your program for public success in regaining control of their government.

BTW - I always said that one man (or woman if ever elected to the office) can not make the changes needed - they need both houses of congress working with them - or you just end up with what we have had these last 6 years = stalemate.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

You mean like in 08. Didn't you read my rant. I told you how to proceed. Now get off the internet and get on with it. If you are getting people out to vote I support that. If you are here telling us to vote you are not helping

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

I've told you and others here more than once. I'm in this to help slow down the decline. Not to help 'solve' the problem. If others have more faith than I do, that's fine.

By the way, you're a hypocrite. You're ripping on me for pessimism but you're the one swearing on your mother's grave that absolutely nothing can be achieved by voting. You're stalking, insulting, and marking down with your multiple IDs those who aren't so sure. So if a non-evil candidate ever comes along anywhere in America, their chances to win will be reduced because of people like you.

If you and the others hell-bent on this 'don't vote' crap were the positive forces you make yourselves out to be, you would encourage others to do what they felt best. Instead, you're stalking, insulting, and marking down with your multiple IDs anyone who doesn't share your defeatist attitude. That's worse than having no hope. That's robbing others of their's.

Of course, we both know that your strategy is to discourage only non-conservative voters. To give conservative politicians an edge. That's why you showed up here with several IDs in this mid-term election year of 2014. That's why you mention only Democrats when complaining about potential candidates.

You may as well order yourself a truckload of Wheaties to live on for the next two years. You are in for one hell of a fight on this 'don't vote' crap.

The rest of you act on whatever faith you do have. Hopefully, your approach will be complete.

Read, inform, protest, spend down, AND vote.

There you go masqueraders who have robbed me of 280 points in 4 days using your multiple IDs while giving yourselves hundreds more. There you go posers using multiple IDs to keep your own comments 'best' rated. There you go you conservative infiltrators.

Mark mark mark!

[-] -3 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 3 years ago

Shad Six Six (SSS), et al, our very own Tokyo Rose.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Great plan. How much progress do you hope to make within the next 23 months?

Get my drift?

Didn't think so.

Mark mark mark!

Next.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. This scenario has been on a certain trend for a very long time, and will continue on it regardless.

To ponder if some politician will have a slightly less or more so effect on it is not only pointless to you as an individual, its a waste of your most precious resource- time.

The effects of either will be devastating to the economy as a whole, as they always are. The effects to you as an individual depend on how aggressive you wish to be. Using your time to try to figure out something like this is a great way to be one that gets railroaded.

Just a thought.

[-] -3 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

There is no 'angle'. We WILL be faced with a multiple but very limited choice in two years. A Democrat or Republican WILL be elected President in 2016. We may end up with Clinton or Romney. Not both. ONE or the OTHER.

Therefore, the question damn well is legitimate.

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Yes, the answer is going to be either A or B. In a global marketplace with global forces at work, we won't know the answer regardless, because there will be nothing to measure it against.

So again, yes A or B will be selected, the outcome 8 years later vs what it would be with the other choice has so many variables, its pointless to worry about it too much.

Either way you will get fucked, you always will, and its up to you to put together a good personal plan to try to stay one step ahead of the fucking.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

I wasn't asking you to look into a crystal ball. I was asking for your educated guess.

I have had a good personal plan for nearly a decade.

It's called not giving my money to rich people.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Its impossible for me to tell. Its like asking if its going to rain on May 24th at my house. Too many variables to even worry about it.

Better off just making sure the roof doesnt leak and my income doesnt depend on it raining or not, right?

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

From the dailydose, how ironic. Im sure you can find the exact opposite arguement on a rightie site. Go figure, how bizarre lol.

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

The difference being that conservative economic policies have been thoroughly proven to concentrate too much wealth and contribute directly to depressions and severe recessions. Liberal economic policies have been thoroughly proven to slow down or reverse the concentration of wealth thereby making economies more stable.

Go ahead and dispute that you fiscal conservative you.

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Well, free trade agreements are actually liberal in nature, so Im not sure how you can just take something very complex such as economic policies that concentrate wealth and divide them up so nicely, one on this side and one on that side.

It seems to me that you have a very low level analysis of this stuff.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Free trade policies are not liberal in nature. They are neutral.

Tax breaks, subsidies, financial aid, and public works projects for the masses are liberal in nature.

Tax breaks, subsidies, financial aid, and government contracts for corporations and the rich are conservative in nature.

I have a long record of making almost entirely accurate predictions.

You don't, so what 'seems to you' is wrong.

Damn right I'm going to cite my record when some poser runs with that 'you don't get it' crap.

I've already cited my record and where you can look it up. You just keep moving the goal post. It's a pathetic strategy. I've already addressed NAFTA as well.

Once again, your criticism is of Democrats in particular.

Transparency can be pretty transparent sometimes.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/porter-stansberry-is-about-to-be-proven-dead-wrong/

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

No need to pm me, Im an open book. Shyness never got anyone much, right? My number is 8133237481.

If you want one of my more worse moments after beating some slimes for harrassing some poor women, whom I didnt know, I'll send you those links too...

Heres a link, apparently the police state doesnt allow for a direct download lol

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/Arrest/Inquiry/Search

So, who are you anyways? Surely, you must have a name eh?

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

Ahahahahah they are neutral....

You have a long record, as far as I can see, of being paranoid and acting like a fool with most of your time giving the internet waaaaaay too much credit.

No one knows you, no one cares what you say, because its the same MSM dribble.

Keep it up, whoever you are...

Do you have a name?

Sincerely, Jeremy Griffin OT

Pm me if you want my #, everyone else has it anyways.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 3 years ago

oh my god - again with the prediction record - prove it and then (assuming you can which is highly doubtful - and none of the porter stansberry shit) stop talking about it. everyone knows already what you think of your predictions on talk show call ins. nobody believes it but move on. state your case and leave it there. as for "free trade policies" you are talking out of your ass - once again! look at nafta - from your beloved slick willy - 2000 pages mostly in secret. if it were truly free trade it would be one page and a short one at that "there shall be no restraint on trade" - that would be it. instead we have investor rights agreements. how about the tpp and obama and fast track. come on economic guru - prediction master - tell us about the tpp and why it needs fast track. what are they hiding?

[-] -1 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

I beg to disagree. Look what happened with the election of Obama, Irrespective of his rhetoric, he did not change any policies of significance from the last administration. (He was not told to do so.) Regardless of who is elected, the new Prez will pick up where the last administration left off, and continue on with the policies he is directed carry out. So, it really does not matter who becomes Prez. Wealth concentration will proceed at the prescribed rate.

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

With TRILLIONS in play, there is virtually no chance that our privately held US wealth would concentrate at the same exact rate under either President. It is also utterly absurd to consider even the most remote possibility that Clinton and Romney would ultimately enact and effect identical budgets and policies. So there is no need to skirt the issue or post any long winded entries here.

The answer is A or B.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

Ok then. I'd say Hillary. She seems to work on her knees much better, and stay on her knees much longer.

[-] -3 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

Alright then. That's one fiscal conservative to go on record so far and another fiscal conservative to agree with a mark-up. Interesting.

I challenge the user who marked your comment up to answer as well. In fact, I challenge all RB fans, err, I mean all fiscal conservatives posing, err I mean all 'users' here to answer once for each mark they leave.

Update: I respond three hours after the previous comment was made and I end up with an immediate mark-down from another anonymous conservative posing, err, I mean anonymous 'user'.

Yup. As expected. The trend continues. It appears that we have a 'user' or two playing games with multiple IDs. There is no longer any doubt.

[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 3 years ago

If you were really a liberal, you'd be out trying to reform the Democratic party, instead of standing up for it.

[-] -2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

I'm not a liberal and I would never lower myself to party affiliation. I'm a die-hard independent free thinker who leans to the right on certain issues. However, I'm very much against conservative economic policies. In fact, I'm hell-bent against them. Because the COW is the most important issue to me by far, the single greatest threat to society in my opinion, I prefer fiscal liberals to hold a slight majority in Congress and the Presidency. Unfortunately, there are very few strong independents and even fewer who are fiscally liberal.

There is no reforming either major party, government in general, or society for that matter. Not one of us will live to see true reform. It's only going to get worse.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 3 years ago

I suggest you make peace with your surrounding and enjoy your short amount of time on planet.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 3 years ago

doom

I'm still eating

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

This is priceless:

"[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1807) 6 minutes ago

Ahahahahah they are neutral....

You have a long record, as far as I can see, of being paranoid and acting like a fool with most of your time giving the internet waaaaaay too much credit.

No one knows you, no one cares what you say, because its the same MSM dribble.

Keep it up, whoever you are...

Do you have a name?

Sincerely, Jeremy Griffin OT

Pm me if you want my #, everyone else has it anyways.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply parmalink"

One of my conservative critics masquerading as a disgruntled liberal, while stalking me on a relentless mark-down campaign, claims to believe that no one cares what I say.

That's a good one.

I suppose a pack of gremlins got a 4 day case of the munchies and ate away 350 of my points.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

It gets better:

"[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1807) 25 minutes ago

No need to pm me, Im an open book. Shyness never got anyone much, right? My number is 8133237481.

If you want one of my more worse moments after beating some slimes for harrassing some poor women, whom I didnt know, I'll send you those links too...

Heres a link, apparently the police state doesnt allow for a direct download lol

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/Arrest/Inquiry/Search

So, who are you anyways? Surely, you must have a name eh?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"

What a desperate and juvenile tactic. Truly pathetic. Next, he will threaten to not like me anymore unless I shut up about Russell Brand.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 3 years ago

So far, new comments have been posted under four IDs. Three of which were just created this election year of 2014. One of which considers the REPUBLICAN to be the LESSER of two evils. NONE of which have gone on record supporting a single liberal economic policy or candidate.

The pro-Romney comment has been marked up at least once that I know of.

As expected, spinoza34 and flip have backed down from the challenge entirely.

It has become all too obvious. For some time now, we have had a number of fiscal conservatives posing as disgruntled liberals here and using multiple IDs in order to offset the potential influence of OWS on liberal voters. The idea from day one, as proven three weeks ago, has been to keep more liberals home on voting day as conservatives run the political board.

As a direct result, the conservatives will now have their Keystone Pipeline. Ch'Ching!

I challenge DNCheadquarters, flip, spinoza34, and turbocharger to ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33315) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 years ago

I challenge DNCheadquarters, flip, spinoza34, and turbocharger to ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Good luck with that - but - I suppose that there is a 1st time for anything.