Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: vote for

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 5, 2012, 7:29 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

vote for the candidate that makes you feel good
vote for Gary Johnson
don't vote for the person who will tax the rich


vote for the candidate that makes you feel good
vote for Jill Stein
don't vote for the person who will balance the Sepreme Court


vote for the candidate that makes you feel good
vote for Rocky Anderson
don't vote for the person who will improve healthcare


The question you need to ask yourself is

"Do I vote for someone who makes me feel good ?"
OR
"Do I vote for someone who will make America better ?"


105 Comments

105 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Vote for the guys with all the corporate backing. It's worked great the last 40 years.

[+] -7 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Vote for someone who can win! Who supports our agenda, and force them through protest to serve the 99%.

Protests like in Chi, & Charlotte right now!

That is how it is done!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The forum mascot, juggling on a unicycle...

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

You force them with Votes, unfortunately, We don't Vote. It's the source of all our problems. Think of a vote as a squeak. And the squeakiest wheel gets all the grease. Big$ is getting all the grease! SQUEAK!!!

Does this require further explanation?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not at all. I would ad that voting is only one part of it. We must also not go to sleep between elections.

A growing robust progressive movement continually pressuring, and agitating all pols for change is necessary as well.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Eternal vigilance, not to confused with obscure vigilante-ism, ala the Zimmerman on here.

The latest evolution of AAR: http://www.indiegogo.com/ProgressiveVoicesApp

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

After decades of RepubliCon demolition of America, for America's sake, let's Vote the 1% cult followers the fuck out!

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

How will Jill Stein "not balance the supreme court" ?

When is Obama's DOJ going to hold torturers and Goldman Sachs accountable?

Because Romney's definitely won't do it either.

Vote for the 2 party system... Support the banks and the 1% that fund them. ...Or break outside of the group of people continually jumping off the bridge... and vote with your own mind.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

How does she get elected??

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

if people stopped devouring propaganda...

The bridge is not complete. Do not keep walking that way.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

casio

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

sony

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

any would be improvement

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

You can yell and scream about the things you hate about the Ds -
and I will probably agree with most of them.
Jill Stein will never DO anything in the Whitehouse. period.

Do you dare acknowledge that?

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I decided to vote for someone who didn't go to Harvard. I think Roseanne is still in the race. She wrote a nice article on Huff Post recently.

[Removed]

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

Why will she "never do anything in the white house" ?

Do you care to back that with facts?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

unelectable

consider that casio

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

If she gets elected president, and you can get to NYC, I will buy yo the best steak dinner in NY
[FYI - I have nothing against her or her party]

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

I got ya. You're saying she has no chance in winning. I thought you meant if she won, she'd never do anything.

People are too busy believing in propaganda to vote for real candidates. Congress especially.

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

obtusion can be fun

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

How would she "not balance the supreme court" if she were elected though?

Also the person I vote for that makes me feel good... is actually better for America than the other options.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

People should vote for the candidate who they think would make the make President, regardless of whether or not they actually have a chance to win. Vote for who makes you feel good. Personally, Jill Stein makes me feel good. (Not in a sexual way though. Not by a long shot).

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 2 years ago

then you should vote for Linclon or TR or FDR or Adams

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

"Vote for who makes you feel good."
And that's the problem -
you are voting for what "makes you feel good"
are you voting for the Mooks president? are you 12 years old ?
responsible adults vote for who can DO the most for America.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

But what if I can't stand either of two major candidates?

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

No mater who demagogues what position. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL

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

You must be one of the few that felt good over the last 4 years. American surely was not made any better.

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

Did you look at the graph? 63% versus 58%? Tell that other 5% who still can't find a job we are better off!

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

Real unemployment is closer to 14%. The 8.6-9% reported is just how many people collect an unemployment check. And no, with everything considered like infinitely printing money, we are not better off. We are selling the future for short term stop-gap bullshit. In my opinion.

[Removed]

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

Many government statistics are questionable. Unemployment, CPI, lack of M3 reported by the fed.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Unemployment is the worst number but it is the number we used before Obama so we're not gonna disregard it now are we? That would be unfair.

But forget the rate!

We have gained on average 200K jobs every month for 30 months! We were losing jobs at a rate of 800K per month before Pres Obama recovery stimulus went into effect.

Not good enough!. Would be better if not for traitorous republican obstruction.

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

even the NAZI used jobs as a rallying cry

people believe in the work ethic

frankly, I think the needs of the people are food, shelter, health and education

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree with your assessment of the needs of the people. The nazi reference is not necessary, confusing and inappropriate.

Peace

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

[Removed]

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

Mitt isn't president. Obama is. The great disparity in wealth continues to grow and will continue to grow no matter which one is elected.

http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/03/incomeinequality.jpg

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Perhaps that nasty weather has baked your noodle. Republicon carnage, Republicon obstruction ring a bell?

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

Here's a better graph. This has interactive sliders so you can vary the results between any two years.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Saw it. You're pretty impressed with the sliders.

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

What I'm really impressed by is valid arguments supported by verifiable facts. Do you have any?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1634) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

You are! OK, I'll go get some, stay right here.

[Removed]

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

The rate of growth has been relatively constant under both reps and dems.

[Removed]

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

The graph shows income growth for the top 1%. There is no correlation between which party is in power.

http://c1ecolocalizercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/03/incomeinequality.jpg

[Removed]

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

The spikes in 1929, 2000, and 2007 are financial bubbles bursting. The graph is not misleading at all.

Here is another showing the lower 90%. Over the last 40 years, almost no growth in real income. Again under both rep and dem administrations.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1968&end=2008

[Removed]

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

Try this graph. It shows income over the last 90 years. It's interactive, so you can move the sliders and find out exactly between any two years what was the percentage of increase that the top 10% got compared to the lower 90%.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=2000&end=2008

"Republicans are using and twisting the data to blame President Obama for the collapse and slow recovery — and to suggest that the collapse occurred under his watch, when in reality it was well underway and nearing completion by the time he was sworn in."

I completely agree. Obama inherited an economy in shambles. It just shows how partisans on either side twist and distort facts to fit their viewpoint.

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

the economy is controlled by the banks

they decide what to put money into and when

[Removed]

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

The decline in the middle class is really a stagnation of income for the lower 90% over the last 40 years. I showed the facts to prove it. Your words are just vapor without the facts to back them up.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I don't know about graphs and such, but in my experience ( auto manufacturing, still a strong indicator of activity.), I was Off for 6 years out of Reagans 8, and even through the first 2 years of Clinton, it was often at reduced hours and occasional TLOs

After that things boomed at an unprecedented rate..( Under Clinton), there were no TLOs even in the winters. That had never happened before.

This continued until about 6 months into Bush's 1st term and went down hill in terms of hours and TLOs, until the crash in 08, when the bottom really fell out.

So in my real world experience, the statement about (R)epelican'ts is true.

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

"So in my real world experience, the statement about (R)epelican'ts is true."

Doesn't that show your bias? One person's job experiences does not prove who is responsible. Some here want to blame the gap in wealth inequality on one party or the other. The plain fact is that under every administration for the last 40 years that gap has widened.

If anybody would like to dispute this, provide the facts to support your argument, otherwise you have none.

[Removed]

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

Provide the facts.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

Not all growth is the same. Looking at just GDP is hardly a representation of the economy's real progress or health.

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

The graph shows income growth for the top 1%, not GDP.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

Ah. Well I have no doubt hey have had a steady ride o the top.

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

Their ride will continue unless we inform the people of what's really going on. Voting for dems will solve nothing. Voting with our dollars and collective bargaining will.

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

voting with a jobs would shut down many companies if we refused to work for them

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

not better?

Bush losing 800K jobs monthly and getting worse.

Obama gaining avg 200K jobs mthly for 30 months and growing

Thats not better?.

huh?

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Avg 200k jobs per month for 30 months and growing.

GDP in Bushs last qtr -9% During Obama between 2-4% growth.

Not better?

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

Can you read a graph? No growth for 2 years.

Show me your source for 30 months of growth..

[-] 4 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Good luck with that. He doesn't use facts.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I gave the pertinent fact!

Adding jobs (almost 5 million so far) on avg 200K per mo. While your boy Bush was losing almost 800k per month!.

That is better!

Not good enough? Definitely! Would be better if your repubs did not kill Pres Obamas recovery/jobs plan? Would be better if your state repubs did not fire 1 million+ public workers during an unemployment crises.

Lets not pretend things are not better. They are! despite traitorous republican obstruction.!

Replace anti worker conservatives, with pro worker progressives, & protest, pressure, & agitate for progressive change!

Peace, and good luck in all your good efforts

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

NO! Do your own research! I stand by my contention!

Bush - 2 wars

Obama - 1 war ended, 1 signed withdrawal plan

That's Better!

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

VQ. Do you have a link to the source of your jobs data presented? I realize that you are stating an "average" but are you taking a total jobs number and just dividing by number of months? To do so would not be a correct method for presenting constant job growth, and can be misleading or confusing.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. Finding an average over a given # of months is obvious. If you are confused that is your misfortune.

Rather than discussing "methods" it is more useful to discuss the substance of the issue. Every month for 30 months we have had added jobs! We would have more if republicans haven't obstructed every jobs bill Pres Obama has requested.

That's not misleading is it?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

I have no problem with math and You did not understand my point. I asked a simple question on what was the source of your information. You made a statement about "adding 200k jobs ON AVERAGE" for 30 months. Since you did not provide a source for the information, I looked at how you wrote it and just wondered if you had used an averaging method. Nothing more, nothing less. jrhirsch asked you about your statement and source and you would not provide. While, yes, jobs have been added, it was you that made the statement about 200k per month. So I ask you, is that a correct statement and if so, what is the source? Even the jobs report that came out today is well short of that, and so are the rest of the previous months. If you desire to have credibility, use facts, not hype. Adding jobs is fine, but it must be over a certain quantity to have a reducing effect on unemployment. That is where the problem is: it has not been enough to lower the UE percentage. And just to note, both democrat and republican administrations in many states and cities have cut work forces due to lack of tax revenue.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

....the entire reduction in unemployment has been accomplished through a significant drop in the percentage of adults participating in the labor force..." Quoting Professor Peter Morici. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48939391

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Unemployment rate has dropped to 8.1%. We added about 100K jobs last month. I'm not gonna back it up. Sorry.

I got the avg of jobs added in the previous 30 months by averaging the jobs added in the previous 30 months. Hows dat.?

Republican controlled states are at the forefront by far in attacking public unions. They have made it a badge of honor at their convention. And they have for decades. They recently attempted to destroy the postal workers union.

You wanna suggest the dems are the same? That is a false comparison. Are you joking?. Please!

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

How's dat??? Please. This is not a personal attack. Just trying to clarify what your source is. Using average numbers in the your above argument is misleading and not accurate. And yes, it is good to see the UE rate go down, but before we jump for joy, one month does not make a trend, we need to wait and see if it will continue. As you know the UE figures have been quite flat for a while.

As for public unions, that is another topic. There are some serious issues that need to be addressed. Too many bad promises by government and too much union money corrupting the negotiating process. Public unions end up funding and voting in the own bosses which is a serious conflict of interest for the rest of the taxaying public. Contract negotiation becomes too cozy with too many promises that can never be paid. It becomes more about re-election rather than fiduciary responsibility. City democrats have generally supported this status quo; union members are happy with the wage and benefit promises and the politicians get re-elected. As these bills come due, it usually requires cutting the workforce in order to attempt to meet these payments. And when they come up short they go beg the state for funds, which then is on the rest of the state's tax payers, who had no say in what is promised in the city. This issue is going to get alot worse before getting better, and there is going to be a lot of unhappy people when these payments come due.. This is not being anti-union but one can see quite easily why we need money out of politics. I have no issue with private sector unions.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"not being anti union"? LOL!

Wow you just spewed every anti union republican taking point there is.

'sok. You're entitled to your opinion. I support the excellent deals our decent hard working American working families enjoy in public union jobs.

I think the budget problems states are struggling with are a result of the republican created economic crash!

I don't think any taxpayer should begrudge the good public union deals/jobs because they can be the leverage to get private corps to improve the deals/benefits for all workers.

We should work to drag public union people down, we should be raising up everyone else.

See that is being pro union.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Again you do not understand my point. Forget talking points. The public union problem has been with us for years, long before any recession started. These bills would come due no matter what economic climate is occurring, but in this one it is just highlighting the problem. This is nothing about anti union. This is about fiscal and fiduciary responsibility. But mainly, it shows why we need money out of politics. Just as the corps have too cozy a relationship with the pols due to the money influence, public unions have the same. That is the point. Get the money out of politics and the the game changes significantly. The good public union wages, etc are the result of the cozy relationship. Thats the leverage which is bought and paid for with the donations. I believe we have agreed previously that money should be out of politics. Do you agree that there is a conflict of interest with public unions due to the money influence and the very nature of election of your own boss? I have nothing against fair contract negotiations. I have nothing against any hard working person, no matter where they are (why would I?) .

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am against all money in politics. I do not agree with the conflict of interest that we have already discussed.

When states have budget problems they should just take it from the rich not the working class.

Conservatives ignore that large source of money and go after the union workers. Progressives support & protect union workers.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I support unions.

I like the excellent public union contracts they negotiate. I don't believe the contracts are a budget problem or a conflict of interest. I believe repubs use that to destroy unions.

I agree with all money out of politics. But I think all workers should have the great benefits of public union employees.

I think we disagree. 'sok. No biggie.

Vote out anti union politicians! Elect pro union progressives And protest for change

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Would you agree that the influence of public union money in elections of politicians who will give them high cost contract terms are similar to the influence, tax breaks, etc that corps get from politicians that they donate to? The issue is that the benefits obtained by public unions are not obtained fairly, but rather bought through corrupted election process. This is a real problem. I am not against fair wages and benefits, but all of us know that there are some real bad contacts and promises out there that no one can realistically afford to pay. It just gets passed on to the next generation so the current politicians don't have to deal with it. If your taxes go up significantly to pay for this coming bill, would you be happy about that? Will you be happy if services are cut instread? Or if employeess are laid off? What if all must occur? Which would you choose? It is a terrible choice for all of us, but governement politicians have continually spent what they do not have. Economic recovery will just mask the problem. It's is still there.

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

the unemployed need food, shelter and healthcare also

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

A question: do you know how many jobs we need to add every month just to effectively lower the rate over a period of time? It is a lot more than what your average is stating: try over 350,000 per month.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I know full well that the increase in jobs has been inadequate.

Repubs in congress weakened/watered down therecovery/stimulus plan Pres Obama passed.

Repubs in congress have obstructed all jobs measures that Dems has submitted!

Repub states have fired almost 1 million public service jobs in this unemployment crises.

So once your traitorous repubs do the right thing the numbers will rise to the 400k they need to be.

Ok?

[-] 3 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

My traitorous repubs? Where did that come from? Where did I state that I back any party? Are all those with differing views or opinions automatically repubs? Really?

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You might be finding out. VQkag is the village idiot of this forum.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"village idiot"? Please refrain from personal attacks. I don't even know who you are. You got a problem with me?

Don't be a coward. You don't have to attack me behind my back! Let's hear it. What did I do to you.?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I responded to the issue/problem you proposed. If there are budget deficits do not seek to balance it on the backs of unions workers. Never! Never on the backs of the poor! never on the backs of the elderly,! Never on the backs of education investment,

Balancethe budget by growing the economy or on the backs of the wealthy.

Also I stated I support all money out of politics! ALL!! Including Unions money.

So I answered your question and I discussed it. Your problem is that you don't like that I called you a republican. Well get over it. I'm allowed. You spew repub talking points I'm gonna say it.

Whats wrong with that? Are you trying to hide that you are anti union & republican?

Take a breath.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

It such a shame that you always seem to miss the point . You react insteadof discuss, then resort to name calling and accusations. This is the case in most of your reponses to any differing opinions. Such a pity. So how about this. I have been a registered democrat since I voted for Humphrey in 68. You have a serious problem with any opinion other than yours, and then resort to attacks with this anti-union, anti-dems and repubs garbage. You would have trouble arguing your way out of a wet paper bag. So we are done on this topic.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your spewing of all the anti union republican talking points betrayed your partisanship.

'sok. your allowed. nothing wrong with being republican!

Peace, Good luck in all your good work.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (352) 2 years ago

Talking points? That's it? By your logic I guess that means that all of your responses are dem talking points? And that gets us nowhere. Again you are missing the point. Could you possibly answer the questions and leave out the rhetoric? Is it possible to discuss anything without flaming a political party. I made no mention of any party, only my opinion and actual reality that's occurring right now. These issues need fixing, they can not be ignored forever. Politicians have made too many favors and promises and the bills are coming due. We simply do not have the money to fund them without consequence to all other programs or existing workers. Where is the disagreement in that fact?

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

tell that to the GM employees
tell that to the home Iraq vets
tell that to the millions of newly insured
tell that to bin laden

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

Tell that to the troops in Afghanistan still fighting a war after 11 years.

Tell that to the millions who have been unemployed so long they gave up looking for a job.

Tell that to the millions who are required to pay for health insurance they don't want.

Tell that to the thousands who are killed by drone strikes in Pakistan.

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 2 years ago

balance the Supreme Court? Didn't they just uphold Obama's healthcare plan?

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

one out of a hundred does not prove a point.
do you understand ANY other decisions in the last 20 years?
do you know about bush V Gore?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Haha I know, I don't think it can really be any more "balanced" than it is now considering how close some of the rulings are.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Thank you: I'm writing myself in.

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

thanks for the attention

I know the dems and repubs have a busy schedule naming each other

[-] 0 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Anything to get the black guy out of office will make most of this squeeeky clean white crowd happy enough

[-] 1 points by wiseoldowl (86) 2 years ago

so true

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

True dat. And this is why the racist republican leadership has obstructed every effort to improve the economy. They need Pres Obama to fail like they desperately wanted a "great white hope" to beat Muhamad Ali!

Suckas "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" MA

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

A question for the DNC operative known as bensdad: what does "balance the supreme court" mean?

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

from the non-DNC operative-
tip it away from corporations & the 1% TO people

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

False dichotomy.