Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: vote D

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EST by zati321 (169)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

you seem to think the president can just do whatever he/she wants, so the fact that obama didnt do as much as you would have liked proves he's just as bad as the other side--it was the other side preventing him from doing it all!! even when d's had a filibuster proof majority in congress, we still needed to get the southern "blue dog" democrats on board, who have many right winger constituents. senators in states where insurance companies are located also were worried about their jobs. those are the D's you should be mad at, not obama. but obama didnt do what R's ALWAYS do: threaten D members if they dont vote in lockstep: "you wont get that committee \chairmanship....or RNC money for your next campaign..." a lot of things. it's perfectly obvious obama did as much as he possibly could, and just barely was able to pass most of it after long fights--still, he did more than any president since johnson.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I'll be voting for the President, no doubt. But it is a hard sell in this crowd.

If he gave the word for arrests of Wall Street investors who have engaged in fraud, and the arrests took place, ditto the lenders and their fraudulent practices, it might go a long way around here.

But there is still the issue of Paulson and his connections to the investment industry - it's guilt by association. Same with Berneke. Geitner.

These guys are all insiders. If they are not ready to fundamentally change the economic theory that is at the bottom of our economic crisis,

then the President himself suffers from their association.

We have got to change the economic theory. Those who oppose that idea have simply got to go.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

I thought you were running for president

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

well sure . . . .

but you don't think I'm either so completely cynical or so outrageously stupid that I am going to cast my vote for anyone other than the President, do ya?

What kinda fool do you take me for, anywayz . . .

but if you don't happen to care for the slate of candidates, I will be more than happy to entertain both your support and your vote.

You can find ZenDog for Prez bumper stickers in the foyer . . .


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

zati & zen - BRAVO!
I am so pissed at Obama -
but our brothers and sisters who can only see that one view.
They need to look harder-
and see the blackmailing crooks that gave us Iraq and debt and death and Citizens United and Bush v Gore and the Patriot act.

Sadly they are centered on a third party or "throw them all out".
I shudder at President Newton Gingrich or President Willard Romney.
Somehow they adopt an almost religious fanaticism "against the machine".

Obama tried - he should have tried harder - but anyone who sees the whole picture and wants the People to win - Obama's the one.

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 12 years ago

I still begrudgingly agree that Obama may be the best choice. I don't want to imagine a US under Gingrich or Romney. I'm still in shock from the National Defense Authorization Act though. To me Obama's refusal to veto that Constitution negating rubbish is a slap in the face of every American citizen.


[-] 0 points by zati321 (169) 12 years ago

afarewelltokings: do i understand you that you dont see the ows taking a stance/role in the 2012 election? i guess that's what im HOPING for right now: ive heard talk of ows protesting the d convention which could wind up like '68... and more violence today. d's dont want to be associated with the violence: it simply doesnt play in the midwestern swing states, where the election will be won or lost. the ows in my little town is awful--i almost got mobbed just for saying nice things about obama. i guess the best for people like me to hope for is for the ows to wither in the snow(?)


[-] 0 points by zati321 (169) 12 years ago

ok, so that's makes 3 of us who agree: zen dog, bensdad, and zati. how do we get this movement to go the direction we want that, im sorry to say, we KNOW is the right direction--and these 3rd party kids are WRONG. its as simple as that, right? but how do we get to the center of ows? how do we get any more exposure than these 2 or 3 websites(which is nothing)? ps i like to tell them: you cant deny the arab spring was inspired in part by the election of obama, AND you cant deny the ows in this "year of the protestor" was in part inspired by the arab spring, THEREFORE the ows was inspired by obama...but maybe that's too "gotcha"? whatever im doing, its definitely not going anywhere...

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

The 99% Declaration wants The List Of Grievances to carry the strong voice of the American people to the government that takes power in 2012. The Resolve, should the new government fail to listen to The People, is to form a third party. The beauty in this is that the stronger the voice demanding real change, the more credible the threat that the third party will kick them out, no matter who they are.

You make it look like OWS is the Democrat's answer to the Tea Party. I don't think that's what supporters were looking for. OWS astroturfed? I can hear the 'I told you so' crowd now...

[-] 0 points by zati321 (169) 12 years ago

i know zen, but paulson et al are insiders because they are the main experts in that field, economics--where else would they go? and i dont think those firms did anything technically "illegal.": that's the problem: the system needs more regulation and oversight, but its the GOVT that has to do that, and the people on this board hate the govt, period. but i know we're basically on the same page and you, individually, are just trying to help me out.