Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Rocky Anderson: an Interview

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 27, 2012, 11:39 a.m. EST by shooz (26679)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's one for the duopoly believers.

Rocky's not a bad guy at all and I like what he has to say.

I think you will too.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10766-a-road-less-traveled-presidential-candidate-rocky-anderson-speaks-candidly-on-the-crumbling-state-of-the-union

The challenge, is to find a way to get him into the national debates.

Perhaps an email and twitter campaign to the commission will do the trick?

http://www.debates.org/

61 Comments

61 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Please sign a petition to allow the third party candidate, Rocky Anderson, to participate in the Presidential debates

http://my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/2012/08/25/please-sign-a-petition-to-allow-the-third-party-candidate-rocky-anderson-to-participate-in-the-presidential-debates/

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Signed

[-] 1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Done. His name sounding so much like Roky Erickson only sweetens the deal.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So you don't think corporations and banks fund the leading candidates?

Have you ever noticed the most funded almost always make the top 2? Especially in most recent history.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

That has everything to do with the cost of effective propaganda.

How else do you explain forced creationism?

Plus you really do have to tie it all in with Reagan's repeal of the Fairness doctrine.

It was an important step that is being glossed over.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Forced creationism?

You can tie a lot to Reagan. He was a puppet working for his sponsors. You can tie the creation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to ignorant Reagan era foreign policy.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

You can trace those things back to the Eisenhower administration, if you care to.

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine really did pave the road for so many of things going wrong today.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (4813) 1 year ago

Damnit! I was gonna post that yesterday but had a pressing matter to tend to.

Nevertheless,

General, Senator, Governor.

These are the positions for becoming president aside from being a vice-president.

If a person running for president hasn't demonstrated the local support for becoming a governor or senator, and doesn't have the billions of Ross Perot, why would a nationwide majority support them for becoming a president?

Pesidential history has shown the step that must be taken to obtain public approval for the presidency. Third parties need to take that step into consideration no matter how needless it may seem.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

They are simply being priced out of the "political marketplace".

It all goes hand in hand with Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

Other voices, can no longer afford the price of entry in purely for profit communication networks.

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

Rocky is definitely someone who should be considered since his views match Occupy's so closely.

[-] 8 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

My point is that people like Anderson and Stein, need to be heard in the debates.

They are indeed legitimate candidates whose voices should be heard.

Most of "middle America" has never heard of them.

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

I completely agree.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

My fear is that with citizens united, it's only going to get worse, going forward.

It will be the monied interests pushing the illusion of duopoly.

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

Duopoly is no illusion.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

OK. then you reconcile it with all the racism, teaching of creationism, and all the rest.

Because it just doesn't fall into place for me in the duopoly paradigm.

It leaves far too many influences out, and just plain doesn't apply Worldwide..

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

When both parties unite against our freedoms and the worlds freedoms as they did by passing the patriot act, NDAA, and wars across the globe, I only see one beast.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Then your vision is 2 dimensional and a bit myopic.

You didn't reconcile a thing either.

Things are not always what they appear to be.

[-] 1 points by electron (-492) 1 year ago

A democrat shill here to tell us that Occupy is wrong in assuming that the government system is broke because Obama will save the day.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

This is why I know you are not who you have claimed to be.

If only because, I've never said such a thing.

And threshy? At least he could make sense once in a while.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

"It" could be vvvRustyButtheadBrucie. I get the 2 of em mixed up all the time.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Could be any number of banned bozos.

I'm not going to play the guessing game over it though.

This one, did claim to be threshy, and threshy and I went round and round quite a few times, at least enough to know that this is not he.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Guess it don't really matter one way or the other - just the average pain in the ass troll when it gets to the bottom line.

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

shooz, would you please explain what you mean by the "illusion of duopoly"?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

The illusion is created by the neolibe(R)arians, to create false distrust in government.

To take a natural, healthy distrust, and push it to extremes.

Meanwhile, they are blowing the tops off of mountains, poisoning air, water, food and anything else they want to, while we just sit and BITCH about the government.

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

Okay, but why do you consider it an illusion that there is two party domination?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Because there is at least one other faction that is involved.

Just because it hides among the existing parties doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

No doubt there are other behind the scenes factions, (in fact monopoly may be a more accurate term for the reality), but the term "duopoly", as I understand it, refers to the domination of the electoral area by the two major political parties There is no other political party which has the power of the R's & D's.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

The term also implies a sameness that is missing from the reality.

It's misleading, in that way.

That's my point. It's an illusion, convenient only to the propaganda of the term.

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

Thanks for clarifying.

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

I would watch the debates if they had real candidates

[-] 0 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I'll probably watch them anyway, but I would sure find them more informative if other points of view were not only allowed, but encouraged.

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

why not get the debate questions and have the other candidates immediately handle them on the net ?

the broadcast could would widen the field and change the conversation

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Anything is better than what we are going to get.

Those voices need to be heard too.

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

I agree

and I think the third parties can put on a good show

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

If they get heard, what they have to say will be the subject of polls, and if those ideas poll well, even the major parties will take notice and adjust accordingly.

That's how it's supposed to work.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

I don't see the email address of the commission.

Is there an alternate place to email that would help, and add it to your post.

Rocky is concerned with saving the planet and it's systems, even us, from being devoured by the global corporations.

His long held understanding and leadership in working on these issues and that the people want and need a new direction and healthy positive vision for real change, demonstrate a need of a real choice who can represent us effectively.

Great interview.

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

From the Debate website:

  1. INDICATORS OF ELECTORAL SUPPORT

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

So Rocky would need at least a 15% share of the voters to qualify for the debate. Because most have already chosen the lesser of two evils, the possible good candidate will never get a chance to be heard.

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

If he were allowed in the debate, he would easily garner 15% support. That's why they keep him out.

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

The whole system is based on exclusion. Modification is definitely needed here.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

That seems like a fair policy. Good post!

The criticism is not lost on me either. It is one thing to be forced to vote for the lesser evil; it is a whole other thing to champion it.

It would be refreshing to get some new affiliations and interests represented during the debates.

http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=29&cntnt01returnid=36

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Sounds impossible, to get to 15 percent, but if people begin now.

Target youth vote: it is for their future. start putting the tag on your emails, voter reg, 3rd party vote petition. word of mouth, stand on street with wireless device and get voters to register to vote and sign 3rd party debate petition.

Someone make a youtube, requesting people sign 3rd party petitions. most everyone has a phone, email, twitter,

Please sign a petition to allow the third party candidate, Rocky Anderson, to participate in the Presidential debates

http://my.firedoglake.com/barefootaccountant/2012/08/25/please-sign-a-petition-to-allow-the-third-party-candidate-rocky-anderson-to-participate-in-the-presidential-debates/

http://www.rockthevote.org/ register to vote

if occupy has support of 1 percent now, just 14 percent to go. We are 99 percent, so it is just math. It is doable.

I don't know if it is advocating a candidate if you are advocating for a candidate to be in a debate. You just want complete knowledge and information, before making a choice.

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

My next occupy sign will be "honk once if Republican, twice if Democrat, and three times if you're fed up with both! And below that, "Break out of the two party rut!

40% of registered voters are Independent. It would be so simple to get a non duopoly candidate elected if people could let go of that "lesser of two evils" mindset. My brother will be voting for Romney even though he can't stand him. Reason. He hates Obama even more.

The "lesser of two evils" mantra is the lynch pin of what must be fought. What underlies the argument is fear. Fear so great that the election of the other candidate would result in the worst possible outcome. If we can figure out a way to defeat that fear, the rest will be easy.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

The closest thing I can find so far, is an address in DC.

District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics 441 4th NW - Suite 250 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-2525

It's kind of like they don't like hearing from us little people.

If I can find something else, I'll post it.

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

Nice post. Rocky would be a real game changer.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

See. I'm not a total putz.............:)

I fully back every opinion I've offered in this thread.

I'll add this.

We need to get the money out, and we need to get the burgeoning media fully back in service to the public.

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

I will back you on this 100% in return haha. Is this a trap?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Not at all, unless you want to argue about the details..........:)

Perhaps it would be wise to re-institute the list of demands.

Just these two things being done, would take care of the lions share of what was on the list before it was dropped.

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

"I've had infinitely more management and executive experience than someone like Barack Obama before he was elected to the White House." Rocky Anderson. If that is all he has; he ain't got much...

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

I'm not saying I back anyone in particular.

I'm saying I want their voices to be heard on a national stage once again.

As they should be

When the system works as well as it can, even those that don't get elected can have an effect and an affect on the national discourse and course of action.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thanks shooz - I will have to read it later - it is late and my eyes are starting to cross - Good Night.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (667) 1 year ago

YES. If we hadn't spent the last 30 plus years voting for only rep or dem we w(uld not have lost our representation in government. People complain about the lack of choices while blindly voting for their team.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Yes.....the whole thing began to go sideways when Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

That's what really turned a political carnival into a two ring CIRCUS.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20564) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Elect either of these two candidates, and what will happen?

They will be forced to confront the same monolithic structure that OWS wants to attack as a whole - they will have to deal with a divided house/senate; the NSA, the Joint Chiefs, and all the rest of the bureaucracy.

The result will be everyone on the left will come to feel betrayed once more, simply because well intended individuals a) aren't up to speed on the inner workings of the DC establishment; b) don't have the resources in place to support their initiatives - in Congress and on the street.

We can only change the direction of the nation by changing the face of Congress, while at the same time agitating on the street - which will give those in DC who lack a spine some reason to straighten up.

We have to focus on the issues, catch them where business / politics, or business / politics / justice intersect, where they conflict, where they represent an embarrassement. Hold them up high and agitate, generating media exposure.

Embarrass the fascists whoever they are. Agitate outside of their places of employment, agitate outside their homes. When they advocate bullshit, scream out This Stinks.

Elect either of these two people if you like - in four years you will all treat them exactly as you do Obama now.

Whoever is elected requires our help. On the streets. Had we been on the streets agitating for public trials of al qaeda members Gitmo might be closed now.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

One of the points I'm trying to get across, is that if you accept the fact that corporations have undue influence, that makes it at least a triopoly.

The duopoly paradigm is just to simplistic to work well.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20564) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that sounds reasonable - although there are any number of folks who insist that both parties are the same, and so here you are back at the duo.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26679) 1 year ago

Yeah, they think that, but they have yet to prove it, and lord knows I've asked them enough times.

Mostly when I push the question, they come up with stuff like duopoly.

Like it means there is no need to think beyond that.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20564) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that is it in a nutshell

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

The president has a lot of power which is not dependent on Congress. Elect Rocky and he will end the wars. His justice department will prosecute banksters. He will drop the appeal on NDAA.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20564) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

obviously you seriously fail to understand how the system works. Not that I get it really - I don't. But I get this much -

the last two times the National Defense Authorization Act was passed, it was passed on the brink of government shutdown. Without a signature the money stops flowing - and then people start screaming.

The last time it passed, the President couldn't even let it become law without his signature - if he doesn't sign it for seven days it becomes law anyway - unless he vetoes. The deadline for the law to take effect was either three or five days away - can't remember. I could look . . .

There are probably as many ways to fuck the public as there are representatives - and just as many ways to make the President look either powerless or complicit.

State authorities are perfectly able to prosecute bankers where appropriate - I think there is a DA in Boston doing just that.

You elect either of these two candidates, without both:

  • sweeping Congressional support
  • widespread public agitation

and in four years time, you will view them with the same scorn you do President Obama now.

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

The NDAA was challenged in federal court and the section 1021 found unconstitutional and the judge issued an injunction barring its enforcement. Obama has appealed that ruling. The president has the power to drop the appeal and let the injunction stand. This would have no effect on funding.

State authorities cannot prosecute federal crimes, - and most crimes involving banking and securities are only federal crimes. That is beside the point anyway. The president has the power to prosecute without any approval of congress.

The president could stop prosecuting Bradley Manning and release him.

The president can also end the wars. Today.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20564) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Section 1021 - which section is that again? I mean, they moved that provision around several times during the various rewrites before they finally passed it - On Christmas Eve - I posted a thread on it at the time, with several links . . .

I'm sure the NYT must have published something on the rationale for defending it in court - do you know what that rationale is? Is it reasonable? Does it fit any facts?

Banking crimes are only federal crimes? Can you prove that? Because I don't believe it is true - most federal crime is also behavior prohibited by state law. So . . . example?

Bradly Manning - he did break the law. Someone no doubt was whispering in his ear that it was a good idea - the question would be who, and why. Given the various leaks within the admin it would place the President and his credibility at some considerable risk in the eyes of the military establishment were he to step in and have him released. No one in the political establishment is going to stand up and advocate for that - but we might find someone willing to demand humane treatment of him while incarcerated. That might be possible, and that is perhaps where we might be able to focus our efforts to best affect.

And as for the wars - you ever witness a cat fight? Ever try to break one up? As soon as one turns its back the other is apt to leap. It's instinctive - the cat with its back turned is in a weak position and vulnerable. A similar dynamic presents itself when it comes to withdrawal from a battlefield where the contest has not been conclusively resolved.

There are several other considerations as well - which from an anarchists point of view might be perfectly acceptable - but which history would in retrospect determine to be highly irresponsible.

The President did get us out of combat operations in Iraq. We are in the process of drawing down in Afghanistan, or will be very shortly. And on both of these fronts we are much further ahead than anyone can reasonably have expected under a repelican administration.