Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Truth About the Two Party System

Posted 2 years ago on March 19, 2012, 1:05 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The 2 party system wants you to believe they are the only viable options. That way they can continue their fraudulent game of divide and conquer.

Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results. So why do we keep voting for the nominees in these 2 parties?

Both parties support the fraudulent financial system. Both parties support wars and sanctions that have resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Both parties have stolen our bill of rights in congress. Both parties work for the 1%.

Both parties are subversive... one is just more obvious about it and they really hate birth control and healthcare.

119 Comments

119 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Ignore party affiliation, find good people and run them in primaries for either party. Eventually it may become possible to co-opt one party or the other. There aren't many other viable alternatives. You could, I suppose, simply wait for everything to collapse and try to organize a rebuilding of society out of the rubble.

Protesting and waiting for someone else to change society for you is in some ways self defeating. You're allowed to win the illusion of success occasionally.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, let's wait for the Republicans to show a change of heart. I hope you are a very patient man. I must give Trevor credit for his tenacity in promoting unrealistic solutions and apathy though; he certainly is determined to undermine the determination of others by suggesting we cah somehow miraculously make both parties disappear, or maybe not.

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

I don't see anyone doing anything to actually change the political landscape. We're all simply sharing ideas. That's fine for a start, but at some point organized political action needs to be taken. If you have the numbers you can make any change you want from within the system.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

WE are making a difference just by being "here" on this forum. This is a communications hub. Things are brought here to be looked at and shared out to other sites, and this does include direct action petitions ( part of the legal process of American citizens in addressing government ). Communications are essential in any movement.

These communications are having an impact as the word goes out and education spreads, along with petition opportunities.

Hence the haters and the trolls trying to shout us down on our own forum.

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

It's a nice thought and there may be a few petitions that actually make it to someone's attention. I've felt from the beginning that Occupy had the potential to get good people elected to positions in congress and actually get some action on the laws that need changing. Instead were left as isolated individuals signing dozens of different petitions. We make ripples when an organized national political movement could make waves.

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

Occupy's ripples are waking up the sleeping majority that have fallen under the spell of that great enemy corruption. It has spread worldwide and will eventually become a tsunami if reform is denied.

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

That is for sure. I used to be partially aware... to the tune that I believed whatever the democrats said in their speeches and I kept track of their speeches on the national news too. But then this world of information opened up and I realized it's not just the republicans that are destroying America... it's democrats too. Words are much different than actions. The ACLU opened up a lot of doors for me as well. They have a ton of great and 100% credible information on their site.

Both parties work for the 1% and war. Both parties support unconstitutional acts of war and are okay with committing war crimes that violate our laws and international laws with the claim of legislation called AUMF.

Both parties are wrong for America. One party is just much more obvious about it. And I thank Occupy and the ACLU for opening my eyes to that fact.

HR 2990 is a great first step. Real job creation, real universal healthcare, and taking the power back from the banksters. We need to get legislation like that passed that, end the wars, and reform campaign financing! That will be 3 huge steps in the right direction.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Such positivity you display. I am absolutely underwhelmed.

Shit-can the negativity and help spread the word. That is how the movements against corruption will move forward and flourish.

That is if you want corruption to be put down.

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

Should I just ignore my principles of peace and continue voting for pro-war candidates that support deleting the bill of rights with laws like the patriot act, AUMF, and the NDAA?

No thanks. If you want to support that fraudulent system... that's on you.

What apathy are you talking about? Do you know what that word means? If I was apathetic I'd be watching Jersey Shore right now and not know who the secretary of state is.

Watch your tongue.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

One Party two parts.You can participate but you do not count or matter.

[-] 3 points by Quark2 (109) 2 years ago

Change happens slowly when the catalyst is right. The republican party will fade away but it will take years. Then, a new 3rd party will emerge with enough power to beat the democrats. The democrats will be the new Republicans. This is when we will have our day. Hopefully, we will still be alive to see the change that so many want right now. Patience & Solidarity!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I consider a lot of democrats to be 1970's republicans already so I definitely see your point. The GOP has become a bunch of Rush Limbaughs that don't yell all the time. They're defeating themselves... especially among women voters. As much as I hate them being crazy assholes... I look at it as a good thing because it's only hurting them. They're even attacking each other now which violates the GOP's tactic that was working for years, which was to not attack each other. People are realizing the system is flawed and it's due to both repubs and dems. More people just need to be informed and that will help progress.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

One party north of Fascism is what our political system really is. Also that is only if you believe that the parties are any different.

Democratic Republic... bah...

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

Overthrowing the people who have corrupted our political system is going to take unity between a majority of the people. We will need to set aside all political differences to fight this common enemy, corruption. Surely we can all agree with that.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Definitely agree. Left and right must unite to defeat corruption.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Unite in common cause. That is my goal.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

There are some possibilities: nolabels.com is worth a look, as is Americavotes.com. There are a lot of voices in OWS, and because of that, there are organizations forming around the concepts of inequality of justice/income and getting money out of politics. Join those who align with your ideals and help get new faces and ideas into the system, from the local level up.

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

Can anyone give a compelling reason to have political parties at all? Can't democracy function without them?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You need a majority to rule. So say there are no parties but just individual candidates, they would have to form a majority quorum in order to conduct the "people's" business. Now if we were not a majority take all republic, then maybe a proportional representation system would work, but because of Article I; SECTION 5,

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide." we are left with two perties.

This clause, "and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business" is what makes party politics part of our majority take all form of republicanism. There has to be agreement by a majority or no business can be conducted. That is why when a third party forms it is incorporated into the two party system.

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

the quorum to select the speaker of the house would be one party

and those that opposed the other party

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

yes, thank you, out of necessity to rule the parties form. It is not written law; it is out of political expedience that the parties exist.

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

could try to move the speaker to an administrative role perhaps elected nationally

in other countries,

people vote for a party ad that party is given it's vote percentage representation in parliament

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

Article 1;5 only says that a majority of each house's members must be present to conduct business. This has nothing to do with political parties. It just defines what a quorum is.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Without a quorum or, for political expedience, a majority party, there is no way for a group of politicians to create legislation. also, say you, as a minority politician, decide not to caucus with the minority, and choose to filibusterer a bill, do you believe that the minority party, the one you chose to shun, would keep quiet when a cloture vote is called? No, they would bust your filibuster in a NY minute. You just need to think through the implications of Article I, Section 5. This is the example that was given to me and is what i believe to be the reason for the two party system. no quorum no legislation. no majority coalition no quorum. that is why a third party would be incorporated into the left or right so as to create a majority so as to have the number needed to create a quorum.

There is no explicit reason why there are two parties, it just becomes expedient when dealing with all the rules of the road.

there is also Duverger's law, which states because of the majority take all nature of our system, parties are inevitable, but this only relates to the election process and does not address the quorum rule.

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

The Senate needs 51 members present to conduct business. It doesn't matter what their party affiliations are. Can a group of 51 Senators, all unaligned with any party create legislation? Yes.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

what you say is possible, yes, but is very messy and forming parties cleans up the mess. besides the two reasons I gave you for party politics, I believe matt makes a good argument too. It is above this one within the same thread as ours.

there is no rule that makes parties inevitable. so i guess in theory you could make politicians sign a compact, promising not to associate with the two parties, but I believe you would be hindering their effectiveness.

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

50 members the vice president can break a tie in the senate

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

A quorum in the Senate is 51.

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

good point

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

A majority party is not required to make legislation. Only a majority of the representatives is.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

good luck getting me and my minority coalition into that house when you yourself dont have a majority. welcome to democratic warfare it is not for the faint of heart, and it is especially not for those who need shit spelled out to them.

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

Warfare exactly. The parties are no different than streetgangs, each attempting to increase their influence. We are so familiar with them, we can't picture political life without them. I can picture life without the bloods and the crips, just as well as without the Republicans and Democrats.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I like your analogy. I use it to describe unions, corporations, lobbying groups and the chamber of commerce. Being able to visualize a world without street gangs is a little different and harder than actually having it come to fruition. good luck! Seriously, I mean it.

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

Great Post. Spot On. Thank you!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

You may not realize it, but I've been thining the 2 parties were shit since like watergate. I can't be the only one. People are ready for a "BIG CHANGE TO A 3 or 4 PARTY SYSTEM".

Weird thing is there is a "Philosophy" about having a 2 Party system. Well, how the hell can you JUSTIFY a two party system....?

I can't thing of anyone on the left that supports a "2 Party System".

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

I've noticed this and pointed this out glad to see someone else believes the same.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

What BS this whole thread is. You can have a third party or fourth party, the constitution already has the provision. The green party is one of those. The problem is you have to get people interested. Half of Americans don't care to vote let alone even pay attention to what dems or repugs do. This is the beginning of your problem Trevor.

How many people read your post here?

Of those, who agreed with you? (About what is quite confusing)

And, does any ONE of them care to give a lick of their time to your grand idea of starting yet another irrelevant third, fourth, fifth party??? (not ONE, hmmm)

Are you brainstorming again Trevor. I suggest trying another idea, this one didn't stick.

This post is DEAD. Seeee Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

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

I wasn't suggesting to START another political party. There are several already and some candidates without party affiliation as well. You seem to be making weird assumptions, although there is nothing wrong with starting another political party, but that was not my point here. My entire point was the republican nominee and democrat nominee are not the only option. Most people who vote think the democrat and republican nominee are the only viable option and that's an idea the 2 party system promotes as well. That mantra only exists because so many people believe it to be true. If people stopped thinking that way maybe we wouldn't continually elect people that are bad for America and continually start wars.

A lot of people agreed. A lot of people disagreed. What's your point?

"Both parties support the fraudulent financial system. Both parties support wars and sanctions that have resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Both parties have stolen our bill of rights in congress. Both parties work for the 1%." - If you think that part of my post is BS, then you are the fool.

And yes, more people need to give a fuck and pay attention. I fully agree with you on that end.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Translation - "Don't Vote!" Be disillusioned, Give Up, Go home, and for God's sake Don't try to find a practical approach! And please, please, remain apathetic 'cause you can't change anything anyway!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Your translation is wrong. You are making idiotic assumptions as well. Should I type my English more clearly?

The democrat and republican nominee ARE NOT YOUR ONLY OPTION WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING.

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

don't vote for either party

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

Yes, always vote for the person.

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

I will research who I vote for

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

That's a vote for the Republicans.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Keep saying that. It's the tactic of the 2 party system. That's what the repubs tell the other repubs when they don't really like a candidate. "If you don't vote for this republican it's a vote for the democrat."

Standard two party system tactic to continue to divide and conquer.

I'm over it. Wise up. You ever looked at all the D's and R's that voted for the patriot act? You ever look at all the D's and R's that support the wars? Divide and conquer.

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

Totally agree! And if you vote for a third party or indepedent, they tell you it's a wasted vote.

[-] 1 points by MtPockets2011 (9) from Shell, WY 2 years ago

That's what they said when we voted for Jesse Ventura in '98, too, and BOTH parties lost! But is it really wasted if neither party nominates a competent choice? Send a message- that's how change happens!

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

no.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

What then, Matt?

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

green

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Not a chance in the next election. After that we need a new party, Greens would be good with me.

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

I will not vote for a president that runs an opaque violent foreign policy

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Thank you. Great response. If only every democrat felt that way... then every democrat that voted for someone other than Obama would win.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

no, what we would have if everyone was so holier than thou that they would forgo voting for a democratic president because his continuation of the bush doctrine, is a republican president ready to continue the bush doctrine.

You know: if you are really appalled with American imperialism, why do you work a job that would put you in the upper middle class echelon? If I was appalled with American imperialism, I'd live under the federal poverty level. Voting for a politician really does not change what the Council on Foreign Relations believes is good policy. As long as there are hard working Americans paying their taxes, there will be foreign intervention. You can't blame this president for not ending the wars as soon as he got into office. He is doing it in a responsible manner. packing up and leaving the day he got in office would have probably been more detrimental to our national security than the course he has chosen.

Also which political party is beating the drums of war against Iran? that reason a lone is a good enticement to vote for Obama, O' yeah, to repeat what others have tried to hammer into you, Obama's ability to replace ginsberg is another reason to see the democrats get the presidency.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't think being anti-war creates a holier-than-thou epidemic.

You are dead wrong about the wars in my opinion. Obama had as much to do with the end of Iraq as the Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2008 requiring the occupation to end by then.

I can blame him for amping up afghanistan. I can blame him for Libya. I can blame him for his administration claiming the authority to kill us citizens with bomb strikes without charge or trial in countries we're not at war with. I can blame him for continually voting for the patriot act.

There was an option that didn't support this bullshit agenda. He was a democrat and he ran for president in 2008.

Is this the US congress or the board of directors meeting for goldman sachs? - Dennis Kucinich.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

good points.

[-] 0 points by TheSquire (0) 2 years ago

We need to fight for a law that simply states that no member of congress or the senate shall vote on any bill, law, act, or the like if it pertains to an industry and/or company in which the representative has received personal financial gains. This would throw both parties off, they are both crooked and serve those who can more than there tax payer salaries.

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

Republicans obviously work for the 1%. The Democrats will work for the 99% if we protest, get arrested, elect more dems and pressure them to pass an agenda that includes; compulsory voting, tax reform to benefit middle class, further financial reform, money out of politics, public health insurance, debt forgiveness for the middle class, civil liberty repairs, ending wars, eliminating A bombs, and all the good things we need and want. The President, nor a given party can do these things without the people rising up.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Even Obama uses super pacs. He might say he doesn't like them... but words are different than actions.

Both parties work for war. Both parties work for the fraudulent financial system. Both parties support the theft of our rights as American citizens.

Both parties are bad for America. They have become corrupt.

[-] 3 points by MtPockets2011 (9) from Shell, WY 2 years ago

AMEN! We need a STRONG middle of the road party. The problem is, that is the ONE thing that Democrats and Republicans will unite for- killing any chance of a centrist party taking hold.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 1 year ago

Exactly. The perks the fat cat parties get for being in power is absurd. Loads of public money for their campaigns just for the asking, while third parties have to fight just to get small donations. Giving people freedom doesn't make the rich any money.

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

The parties are bought and paid for. Corruption persists. A party that works for the people is certainly what we need. I think it is better to take back a party by protesting and changing the corrupt system. Daunting but not impossible.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I like the two party system. It usually gives the majority what they want. In a many party system, someone can win with a small percentage of the vote, like Jesse the body in Minnesota, winning with 38% of the vote in the governors election back in '98. Their would have to be a run-off involved in a many party system.

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

This is how 12 years of wars and war crimes happen from repub Bush to democrat Obama.

The 2 party system is not working for you. They're working for war and the 1%

One party is just more obvious than the other.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That was a true sign of discontent with professional politicians.

Jesse the Body Ventura.

For real!

[-] 2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I like Jesse. However he is a bullshitter of large proportions. In his autobiography he claimed to be the first Minneapolis city school swimmer to break the 1 minute barrier in the 100 yard butterfly. My high school swimming coach went to Mpls. Edison high school and claims to have been the first. He beat Jesse in a head to head race in which they both broke the 1 minute mark! It's a funny story, but my old coach was pissed when he read the story!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Jesse is or can be a likeable guy, but you could never trust the stories he had to tell. Not as far as you could toss a house.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

That's no shit. I believe he could have done a lot for our great state if he wasn't so abrasive. I mean, his abrasiveness is good to a point, but, his hate for the local media wound up as handcuffs around his wrists. I think many of us had very high hopes for his governorship. I guess it was the classic example of hopeful initiation followed by disillusionment.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I would like to see each partyresponsible for their share of the debt they each incur.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yes - we get what we ask for.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And President Gore would have drilled in Alaska just like President Bush did, or does that not matter?

You GOP supporters are so transparent.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No not at all. You are just being an ass when you make comments like that. Sorry to resort to name calling but I'm sick of people calling me a GOP supporter because I oppose the wars and the theft of our civil liberties.

Is the ACLU a GOP shill?

Stick to facts there, guy. They're more fun.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I certainly don’t think the Democrats are perfect, as a matter of fact I think the Republicans are almost perfect. Perfectly bad.

I have been watching this stuff closely for over 30 years, and if every American don’t pull their heads out of the sand thinking they are “about the same” we are doomed that is exactly what the 1% want you to believe. If we were in 1960’s looking at a Covair and a Mercedes you could talk about how they both have tires and a motor, and i could point out that one of them will kill you. Nader was once a truth teller, the guy who would tell you that one would kill you, but when he wanted power he became one of the they’re about same guys, why don’t you buy the Covair it looks cool.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Look this is about activism sometimes that means doing things that you would not normally do, whatever you have to do to defeat a Republican is worth it, even voting Democratic.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Just voting democrat for the sake to beat the republican is what I normally do. But now the democrats are turning into 1970's style republicans. I think more than just the republicans need to be defeated. The 1% war monger crowd that are stealing our rights need to be defeated. If that means not voting democrat and not voting republican, that sounds easy enough for me. And I generally mean this about the president. Democrats like Denis Kucinich are the type of democrats we need but that's on a smaller basis. Dennis isn't the typical democrat and isn't as respected as he should be by a lot of the democratic party.

All the D's and R's that repeatedly voted for the patriot act and go on tv beating war drums... they all need to go. They are the problem.

We need politicians that work for the people and produce legislation like HR 2990, the NEED act..

If every democrat voted for a candidate that didn't support war, maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have a president that starts wars.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So by not voting you are going to keep anybody from getting elected, what are they going to do leave the post open? That makes no sense like failing to vote to defeat a republican makes no sense.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I never once said "Don't vote"

I'm saying don't vote for pro-war candidates that have continually voted to give the federal government more power over our rights. If every democrat voted this way, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so much war and BS pass under a democrat presidency.

Believe it or not, there are more than 2 options for every position. I'm not strictly speaking presidential either. Congress is just as important.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so vote for someone that has no chance of winning, and let the Republican have the seat, I did that in 1980, sure wish I hadn't but I see where your coming from, I just don't think we can afford that kind of thinking anymore, because it almost always leads to the worst of the two likely options winning and the country has been getting killed by them

BTW the ACLU support the D's mostly

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The problem with the lesser evil is that it is still evil.

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

Yes! That has been my point this entire time. The lesser of two evils is a down hill losing battle.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it.---Eugene V. Debs

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And this is how evil wins, Reagan, Bush, where will we be after Romney, or Santorum?

Sure I guess if you think everything is fine and we can just keep on flipping back and forth and letting these guys run things forever, then vote for that “perfect” person.

If you think we need to get something done, then we got to throw the crazy party out (that’s the GOP) and tear apart and rebuild the one that is left, but we keep throwing our votes into the wind and letting others, who don’t know the truth who just watch the adds, we let them decide, well we get what we get don’t we.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

You mean as opposed to someone who has made assassination an official and public part of US Foreign and military policy? Someone who picks Goldman Sachs executives to run our economy? Someone who picks Chicago political hacks to run our domestic agenda? The only way the movement will get anywhere is by steering clear of that crap, which fortunately is exactly what OWS has done so far.

OWS is far from perfect, but it is far far better than the two parties of the 1%.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

like I said you think Santorum would be better? then you are far to blind to lead, or just an agent of the 1%

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course Santorum would not be better, but anyone who thinks that the Democratic Party and its agents and candidates are in any meaningful sense agencies of social change does not know much history. Historically the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists more than half a century ago. Fortunately OWS has not fallen for this trap (yet).

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I had read you for a GOP supporter from the get go, well I'm pretty sure everyone in OWS can see through your 1% crap.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am 69 years old. I have voted in every election since 1964 and I have never voted for a Republican. It is also the case that I have never voted for a Democrat.

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

That's a 2 party sheep response. If every democrat didn't vote for a pro-war candidate, maybe the wars would be over.

How many lawsuits has the ACLU filed against the Obama administration? It ain't zero. The list ranges from the theft of rights to war crimes.

Here's some facts for ya. I closely follow the ACLU.

"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html

ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU

http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You and "red" can do all you can for the GOP and the 1%, but I'm pretty sure no one buys your crap.

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

You can think whatever you want. I think you are just being a dick now.

Conservatives called me a crazy liberal when I spoke out against Bush and his war crimes and now democrats are calling me a GOP supporter because I speak out against Obama and his war crimes. Both parties are the problem. Both parties are contributing to wars. If you want to call me a GOP supporter because I'm anti-war, you are just being foolish.

Calling me a GOP supporter doesn't change the facts I've shared here. GOP supporters don't get 2344 karma points on an OWS site.

STICK TO FACTS. THEY'RE MORE FUN.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

maybe if you weren't so one sided in your critizem, maybe if on occanision you spoke about the problems with wealth, instead of just conspiricy all the time, go ahead put up some of that Bush stuff, whyt don't you show us something that woul;f indicate your not just here hacking for the GOP.

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

I do all the time. It's just the Barack supporters blow up my posts about him and keep them popular. No one commented on my post about taking away food donations to the homeless in New York. No one commented on my posts about drones in the US. No one commented on my posts about the wars and congress. No one commented on my posts about the financial system. No one commented on my post about Rick Santorum and his entire agenda being based on violating the first amendment by changing laws due to his religious beliefs. And when no one comments, the posts go to the bottom. But everyone comments on my posts about Barack Obama and that makes them all linger and stay on the top of the forum. If someone else was president, my criticism for the president wouldn't be aimed at Obama, it would be aimed at whoever was president.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I saw the Santornum post, no one comments because you are a known troll, this is your chance give us some good stuff about wanting higher wages, you may have just been shilling for Romney trust is tough once it's broken, evem though I did read that one twice

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Read my post below. I find it weird that a person that just goes around calling people trolls all day over and over again thinks that someone else is a troll.

Read my comment below. I linked just about all my posts that you claim don't exist in your comment below.

Stick to facts, they're more fun. Trolls and GOP supporters don't get over 2,300 karma points on an OWS site.

This is OWS not an Obama rally. The fact that I do not support Obama and I do not support the GOP does not mean that I'm a troll that supports the GOP.

I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PRO-WAR CANDIDATES. I do not support anyone who voted for the bailouts. I do not support anyone who voted for the patriot act. I do not support anyone that chooses war and bombs over diplomacy. I do not support anyone who voted for the financial modernization act. I don't care what else they've done, if they supported anything I mentioned, THEY ARE RUINING AMERICA.

Essentially I do not support 98% of politicians in the government. If this makes me a troll then you are a fucking moron.

Dennis Kucinich was one of the few I supported, and sadly now he's not even in congress anymore.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Jesse, it won't let me reply to your comment below for some reason, so I'll reply here and say thank you for the comment. I can respect that and I can respect your right to vote for who you want to vote for. I'm just trying to get information out there. Sometimes people like Factsrfun and GypsyKing come at me like I started flinging poo at them. I don't get it. They resort to name calling instead of arguing facts. I just don't get it. But I can respect you even if we disagree on who we're voting for simply because you are being respectful and sticking to arguing facts instead of resorting to name calling.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

When it comes to your conviction on the war issue, I find your fire and tenacity commendable. Even though I'd love to see you vote for Obama, I respect your posts and wish you the best.

Obama,

Four More Years! LOL

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't support a 100% but I know for a fact if we continue to allow Republicans to hold public office we are doomed, if we can't even get rid of something so clearly evil as the Republican party how do you think we ever clean out Washington, 2012 will be the test are we going to do something this time, or just throw our votes away on a Nader again

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You didn't include the link you are a frigging lying troll, as far as your points go I know exactly how you got spewing carp into meaningful threads like mine

http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=user%3Afactsrfun

you have been given the chance to show your thoughts which you refuse to revel, look everybody knows who you are

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

they can't delete them, send me the link I could not find even one of your post that dealt with wealth inequality, if you had ask me to do this it would be in the first response, by now it is clear you are a lair and a troll and an agent of the 1%

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

Lulz try arguing facts instead of resorting to name calling. It only says something about you when you stoop to that level.

Here you go

The threat of the financial system to our nation and mention to support HR 2990, the NEED Act which would allow for actual job creation and real universal healthcare - http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-of-the-biggest-threats-to-our-nations-sovereig/

My newest post about the Jobs Act and the Financial Modernization Act - http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-dumbest-bipartisan-move-since-the-repeal-of-gl/

My post about the benefits of unions - http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-think-unions-are-bad/

My post on the homeless in New York - http://occupywallst.org/forum/new-york-city-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

Permanent warfare anywhere now allowed - http://occupywallst.org/forum/permanent-warfare-anywhere-in-the-world/

Another post about the Financial Modernization Act and how it is important to know about - http://occupywallst.org/forum/important-legislation-we-should-all-know-about/

The stupid republican birth control argument - http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-contraceptives-and-catholics/

My post on Rick Santorum - http://occupywallst.org/forum/rick-santorum-vs-the-constitution/

My top 7 eye openers about government corruption and abuse of power, I forgot to include the bailouts and facts about the Fed - http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-top-7-facts-about-government-corruption-and-abu/

My post about Wall Street and Obama administration - http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-and-wall-street-laugh-all-the-way-to-the-ban/

My post about arming drones with pepper spray and rubber bullets - http://occupywallst.org/forum/armed-drones-in-the-usa-tear-gas-and-rubber-bullet/

My question about war mongers to democrats, both Bush and Obama are warmongers, they've both started wars they've both bombed countries that didn't attack us under the claim of a violent and ruthless leader, they just went about it differently - http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-most-democrats-only-call-a-president-a-war-/

The war in libya - http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-bush-should-have-been-impeached-obama-should-be/

I can keep going if you want to read all my posts. I'm pretty sure you are the troll now. Lulz. Go throw a rock. It might be a better wey to spend your time instead of continually calling me a troll and a GOP supporter because I'm against the wars and refuse to support pro-war candidates with a violent foreign policy.

Everyone in OWS already knows the truth about the republicans. This is why I do not spend too much time on them. We all know they are frauds that work for the 1%. But there are many people on here who think the democrats do no support these agendas so many of us speak out against, but they are. And that was proven to be very true in 1999 with the passing of the financial modernization act. It's an important message and that's why I spend a lot of time on it. OWS is not an Obama rally. I am not a troll if I speak out against Obama and his war crimes.

Don't make me post the same links from the ACLU again.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This one on unions I like, you seem to not be at all concerned with wealth inequality in the country, none address that:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-think-unions-are-bad/

Now this one is interesting you bring up one of the clearest reasons to vote against the GOP, the fact that they are always sticking their hands down your pants, then trun it back to a reason to oppose Obama, which of course just helps Romney, your writing would indicate that you are not stupid, therefore I must accept that you know exactly what you are doing, only reasonable answer, you are a troll.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-contraceptives-and-catholics/

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

no worries

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

news flash - your 1% obsession - the so called Buffet Rule - CBO just determined it would bring in 31Billion over 11 years. How does that fix our problems? 3 Billion a year lol! Obama has you so distracted on class warfare you cant see reality anymore.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's not about paying the bills...working people always have to pay the bills...it's about keeping them from taking over

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

keeping who from taking over what?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Our government, did you forget why we were here?

[-] 1 points by MtPockets2011 (9) from Shell, WY 2 years ago

When are we going to realize that it's not about one party or the other- they both suck the life out of us common folk...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

When are you going to realize that the people in office will be writing laws, or do you think all our laws are just great? When are you going to realize that if you are not picking who is in poffice somebody else will, somebody who gets all their info from the SuperPacs, if you want to live in a world where the Super Pacs pick our leaders, well I don't, i know how we stop this, and it starts by getting rid of as many republicans as possible then we bust the dems in half.

[-] 1 points by MtPockets2011 (9) from Shell, WY 2 years ago

So the Republicans are the only ones that have Super Pacs? I did not know that.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I did not say that, I said if OWS is not involed in politics then the Super Pacs pick the winner,do you have difficulty reading or are you a liar? and yes we cannot "eat our own" and turn it all over to the GOP the way we did in 68, we have to get rid of the GOP first then bust the dems

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I agree with you whole-heartedly. Unfortunately too many people here don't.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so start or choose another party. what's the big deal?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The big deal is there is a level of corruption going on way over everyone's heads.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so how do you propose to fix things? by throwing a temper tantrum in the park? That's so immature no one takes you seriously.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been to several different occupations on many occasions and in no instance have I ever seen a temper tantrum, unless, perhaps, by the police.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

it's a metaphorical temper tantrum OWS

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I have been to at least six different occupations. In every instance in my experience the occupiers seemed calm, thoughful and reflective. About the only time that changed was when they were becoming energized for a march or when being directly confronted by the police. In my experience I would not characterize occupiers as having a temper tantrum in any sense, metaphorical or otherwise.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

that's ok I'll just take this one (the dems) and do with it as I please