Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: VOTE, or else this will all be a pointless exercise in futility!

Posted 10 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 8:41 p.m. EST by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are a lot of Occupy Wall Street protesters saying that voting is a "waste of time", and that they "will not vote again". Many people here are complaining that government is not responsive, that the Tea Party and conservatives have disproportionate influence, and that voting is futile. But isn't complaining about the Tea Party's influence the same thing as acknowledging that our government IS responsive, and that your vote CAN make a difference?

The Tea Party was able to hold the federal government hostage during the debt ceiling negotiations because they were effective at electing representatives to do their bidding. Recent union busting, draconian immigration laws, and business deregulation, are all examples of conservatives getting what they want because they're effective, goal-oriented participatants in the democratic process. There are Occupy Wall Street protesters repeating the slogan, "This is what democracy looks like." But protests are only part of what democracy looks like. Democracy also looks like Nikki Haley, Ron Johnson, and Rand Paul.

A lot of Occupy Wall Street protesters are jaded about the entire democratic process after the bitter experience of putting all of that energy into "Hope" and then getting nothing out of it. But how many of those Obama supporters voted for him and then left it all to him and expected him to somehow magically fix everything? Only 24% of people aged 18 to 29 voted in the 2010 mid-term elections. ( http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/ ) Most of those people lean to the left, but they disenfranchised themselves through lack of commitment to the democratic process.

The Tea Party didn't make the same mistake. They held their protest rallies, they gave their speeches, and then they went home and voted. At the same time, elected conservative politicians are actively reforming the election process to stop liberals from voting. ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830 ) But liberals are voluntarily forfeiting their right to vote, even without interference from conservatives.

Instead of talking about obtaining a more responsive government through "demands" that would bypass the democratic process, Occupy Wall Street protesters should focus on effectively participating in the democratic process. That's what democracy looks like. Instead of talking about unrealistic fantasies like abolishing the electoral college, people should be thinking about voter registration drives. Elected conservative officials are already several steps ahead, passing laws to make it more difficult to organize voter registration drives. You can't fight against these tactics without participating in the democratic process.

The success or failure of the Occupy Wall Street protests hinges on the ability of the movement to focus its energy on participating effectively in democracy, and translating the energy and momentum into votes. If all of these protesters hang out and express discontent and scuffle with cops but then they don't vote, then the whole thing will be remembered as a pointless media stunt.

UPDATE: A year later, journalists are agreeing with my "pointless exercise in futility" assessment:

It will be an asterisk in the history books, if it gets a mention at all.

A year ago this week, the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan. The loose group of protesters, frustrated by the economic downturn, sought to blame Wall Street and corporate America for many of the nation’s ills.

While the movement’s first days did not receive much news coverage, it soon turned into a media frenzy, with some columnists comparing its importance to that of the Arab Spring, which led to the overthrow of leaders in several Middle Eastern and African countries, spurred by social media. Images of the Wall Street protesters getting arrested were looped on news channels and featured on the covers of newspapers. Big banks — and the famous Charging Bull statue that is an icon of Wall Street — were fortified with barricades. By the end of the year, Time magazine had named the protester its Person of the Year, perhaps rightly given the revolutions taking place around the world, but the magazine also lumped Occupy Wall Street in among the many meaningful movements taking place.

But now, 12 months later, it can and should be said that Occupy Wall Street was — perhaps this is going to sound indelicate — a fad.


It's ironic that originally most Occupiers rejected the idea of participating in democracy at all, whereas now most Occupiers seem to be working for the Obama 2012 campaign. Instead of supporting Occupy candidates who could have made government more responsive to OWS concerns, Occupiers are campaigning for establishment Democrats, while there is a Tea Partier running for Vice President. The Tea Party may actually put a candidate in the White House, while Occupy marches blindly onward toward its status as a footnote in history.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

You are absolutely right. We must vote AND hold those we vote for accountable AND retake American Streets for Americans!

[-] 3 points by odiug (93) 10 years ago

I think one of the problems is the lack of competition! The US is very strict in it's anti trust laws ... at least used to be ... only in it's political system it allows itself to be dominated by tow big trusts, Democrats and Republicans! If you vote, and i hope you will, vote for a third party! It might be a wasted vote for the up coming election ... but it would be a strong signal to the established political parties if this becomes a trend!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 10 years ago

You must vote for a third party!
It is the only way Bain Koch ALEC Norquist can win !

We need more bushy iraq wars & milititary spending
We need to get rid of the FDA & public schools
We need to complete the privatization of prisons
We need more scalia & thomases

You must vote for a third party!
It is the only way Bain Koch ALEC Norquist can win !

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 10 years ago

Absolute Bull Shit!!

A Vote for a third party in November would be a vote for Republicons. And we saw what hell and regression that got us in 2010!! After the election, if we can build a viable third party, or get involved (democracy is not a spectator sport) in the Democratic Party, would be a time for change or to change.

Get Out the Vote this November!

If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!

2010 Never EVER Again!

[-] 2 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 9 years ago

Agree totally. I am glad to have finally found someone who understands this paradigm that political participation is a must if Occupy is to succeed.

Perhaps you this post may interest you.

OccupyWallStreet – Phase 2 “A Suggestion” it is up there somewhere in the sidebar :)

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I posted this page a year ago, and at this point I no longer believe that it's possible for Occupy to become a political force. For every Occupier who wants political representation, there are two anarchists intent on preventing it. It's much easier to tear something down than to build something, so the anarchists will always win.

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 9 years ago

I securely believe you it is within the realm of speculation to think you may be an anarchist advocate.

Have a good one. The mindset of failure is why you will fail. but it is inherently wrong to brand an entire movement with your own contemplations of failure.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The guy advocating participating in our democracy in order to make it more responsive to our concerns is an anarchist? The guy arguing for a centrist, bipartisan consensus on pushing for a constitutional amendment to eliminate private campaign financing is an anarchist? Is me of the two of us possibly confused about the meaning of the word "anarchist"?

[-] 1 points by Anomilus (41) from Naples, FL 9 years ago

Lol, and here I though I was glad to have met someone. Dude, you have the shittiest mindset possible to any and everything spoken if it isn't an exact parody of your every whim. It is impossible to endure such arrogance, not to mention in another comment you fabricate realities of me 'slurring' FoxNews as if slurring a news organization is even possible.

You are unbearable, you make any and every conversation into a flame tard troll fest and it is unreasonable to expect everyone to simply take your crap. I'm here to meet some good people and exchange ideas not put up with your snotty combative tone and condescension on any and every thread I attempt to make a comment on.

If you only wish to play grumpy old troll under the bridge, you'll find children elsewhere. My 4 year old daughter enjoys Dora games too.

Good riddance.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 9 years ago


It doesn't have to be this way. People CAN exercise legal leverage to get the kind of politicians that will serve their interests. People CAN vote on local initiatives that will limit the influence of corporations upon the local economy. And people CAN take responsibility for the welfare of society by forming Cooperative Employment Services. We don't have to vote for unaccountable politicians and we don't have to wait for politicians to create jobs. It's all in our hands to do. So far, throughout all of the protesting, no one has chosen to do it.

[-] 2 points by zymergy (236) 10 years ago

This is a great post. Of course the Democrats and the Republicans want you to believe that any vote that is not for their candidates is a wasted vote. It is wasted for them, it is NOT wasted for you. Your vote is your vote, not theirs. The only vote that is wasted in my opinion is one that is not cast at all. Go to americanselect.org. There, in its on-line primary, you can vote for a Democrat or a Republican if you wish, but there you can also vote for an Independent candidate. There you can also nominate an OWS candidate. please see http://occupywallst.org/forum/be-sure-to-register-on-americans-elect-and-support/

[-] 2 points by stelth (7) 10 years ago

A Republicat is a person with either republican or democrat ideology, who, once elected, is primarily interested in doing two things: increasing his/her personal wealth and getting re-elected. Governance is way down on Republicat's priority lists. Everyone is looking forward to the next election cycle. The mantra is "throw the bums out." But, stop and think about it. Will dethroning the incumbent Republicats result in meaningful change? Will it result in better governance? How can it when the only choice voters have is to oust the current Republicat and replace him/her with another Republicat. How does this result in any improvement? It doesn't. It's been done in past election cycles and look where we are today. What's needed is another choice on the ballot --- None of the Above.

[-] 2 points by BashBro (4) 10 years ago

Do you really think that all of the politicians will be so moved by your occupation of wallstreet that they just decide to pack it in and go home?

TechJunkie has a great point, people may hate the Tea Party people but they set out with a goal(however right it may have been) and then did exactally what they wanted because they went out and voted.

You can't stop the fucked up political organization from sitting around New York for 2 weeks. Pick smart candidates who aren't politicians. Then maybe you will see some change in this country. Anyone who makes a career out of being a politician can already be discounted as a good candidate. They have to pander to get votes to keep their jobs.

We have an amazing ability to rally behind one central candidate now without having to spend huge amounts of money on campaigns and pandering to corporations to get money to keep the campaigns funded. The internet is a great tool to do this with, you have seen its ability to unite people to one goal though this movement and others throughout the world. Use it to its full potential and get out and vote.

TL;DR: Fuck everyone thats in politics now, pick someone new who thinks they can do a good job and represent our goals. Not the goals of the corporations that back them.


Served one term intentionally and got shit done.

[-] 2 points by Dwnwitwlst (4) from Tustin, CA 10 years ago

What we should end up doing is taking some of us who are downtrodden unemployed workers in the occupy movement not guided by greed but for their middle class friend and families to run for congress. Someone who is honest about crimes and mistakes in the past and honest about how they will act. We need change and need to vote for true people of change and as long as we keep letting the same candidates go in over and over and letting party candidates as the only two people in office we will lose this fight again and again. STOP VOTING PARTY LINES AND START VOTING FOR THE PEOPLE!!!!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

if people vote , they will care more about the actions of their government

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

That definitely seems true. You take more of an interest when you're actively participating. That's why they have mock elections at schools to teach kids about civics.

[-] 1 points by evileye (11) 9 years ago

I quote myself, "A leaderless, unfocused movement is just a trend. I see this as being more an affectation than true support of the movement by most. Trends come and go and change with the seasons. " 10/27/2011

If you don't vote, then you can't be upset with outcome. Not voting, not contacting your representatives is apathy at its best. Don't expect your representatives to do the right thing, you need to tell them what to do. They work for you. If you're not happy with them, then VOTE THEM OUT.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, you were right. A lot of us were saying the same thing, but unfortunately the phrase "pointless exercise in futility" ended up being an accurate prediction.

The 2011 election cycle is about to go by and Occupy missed their chance to field candidates, so now apparently the plan is to root for Obama from the sidelines instead of participating directly as a new political force.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

the democratic and republican presidents don't seem to me to be political force at all

I've seen one bumper sticker for president

these puppets are not a political force

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I would agree with that simply on the basis that both candidates have rejected public financing and therefore have to answer to their financial donors instead of to their constituents.

Occupy candidates could be different, if they existed. You don't have to field a Presidential candidate. You can start with Congress. Many other young political movements have succeeded in winning representation in Washington. Is Occupy just not capable of that?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

I think candidates are out for their own self interests aswell as the interest of the donors

I think these candidates also have the interest f the support group they make contact with


yes. occupy is a failure for having no candidates through one can always vote Green

fail fail fail

I love saying that

the poor have failed themselves

[-] 1 points by divisionamerica (4) 9 years ago

George Carlin doesn't vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

[-] 1 points by Shubee (119) 9 years ago

I'm ashamed of the occupy movement's irrational attitude that they are going to lose influence if they were to rally around the Green Party candidate Jill Stein or the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I saw/heard Jill Stein down at Bowling green yesterday. She sounded great. Everyone was much interested. I think OWS must and will evolve to include a strong reform/inside the system wing. While not taking away from the radical outside the system wing.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

my question is, how has voting changed ANYTHING in th world? It hasnt! The entire political system's a joke. Do we get to vote on what wars we fight or if we want to not fight AT ALL? Do we get to vote on the bank bailouts? Do we get to vote on the National Defence Authorization Act? Do we get to vote on how our transportation, distribution, manufacturing base is setup? Obviously not! We instead got gay rights, abortion, and all other useless pointless shit to vote on

[-] 1 points by Shubee (119) 9 years ago

It's important for me to vote for people that I really believe in. Usually, we only have the chance to vote for shills set up by the masters of mankind. But my vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein will affirm what I really believe. She's not going to win because most people are being manipulated to vote against their own self-interests. And I think that there is no stopping the masters of mankind from their objective of enslaving the world. But I can expose what is going on. http://everythingimportant.org/

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

masters? I dont have any masters, and im not afraid of em. The green party cant do jack, im sorry to disappoint you. Didnt you read all the stuff I wrote above? Politicians cannot solve problems, they are not trained to do so. Ask Jill Stein, how can we fix the unemployment problem? How can we stop automobile accidents that kill 40,000 americans per year? How can we reduce heart attacks that claim 50,000 lives per year? How can we increase agricultural yield without exhausting the soil? How can we bring stability to the Mid East? I can guarantee you they got no answer. Scientists and technicians, on the other hand, have solutions for these problems. But its ok, im gonna save my "breath" because you might come back and call me a communist, socialist, technocrat, elitist, futurist. Thats basically the jist at OWS, to call people who bring new solutions one of those labels, since its pleasing and fun for them. And then they go on with their trolling. I really hope your not like that, but I rest it with you to think about these things. Peace

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

FYI: His question was actually a lead-in to a bunch of cult proselytizing about how the true solution is to adopt a "resource-based economy" where computers control everything and money is obsolete. (Enslaving the world to computers, in other words.) You can see the rest of it a little further south on this page if you search for "thesungiveslife". Look up the "Zeitgeist Movement" if you want to learn more about what he's talking about.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Read the original article, it's all about the counter example. Electing candidates turned out really well for the Tea Party when they hijacked the national debate over the debt ceiling and got the cuts that they wanted. Now they're preparing to vote for a Tea Party candidate who will fight for Medicare reform from within the White House. Voting worked out pretty well for them.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Still pushing the great tea party I see. Corruption?. wealth inequity?. no?

you should change your login to teapjunkie.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

To respond with a knee-jerk anti-Tea-Party comment is to completely miss the point. I'm not promoting the Tea Party, I'm pointing them out as an organization that has been successful at advancing its agenda. Compare and contrast.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

They have been an utter failure because what they are doing is anti people. It looks like they may succeed at destroying the republican party.

Other than that they're just a bunch of greedy, selfish, heartless rank amateurs.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You seem intent on proving to me that you don't read anything that I post.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I read everything we just disagree. I support OWS and celebrate their success.

I believe you support the tea party and certainly praise what you claim is their success.

What are you talkin about.?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I've been explaining to you all day that I don't support the Tea Party and that I'm comparing and contrasting them to OWS. You've been talking to me for hours today but you still don't understand what I've been repeating over and over all day in different ways. So you're either not reading what I'm posting or you're not capable of comprehending what I'm posting. At this point I'm just entertained by your inability to process anything about politics or economics that isn't all about the left/right dichotomy. You and shooz really have the foaming-at-the-mouth partisan thing down pat.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

There you go, makin' stuff up again.

You never did answer the questions I asked you.

In your rabid, partisan defense of the teabagge(R)s, you missed the simple fact that I tried to explain to you , that Occupy is very different from the teabagge(R)s..

You just glossed over that and continued with your praise of teabagge(R)y, while tying to explain that you're not doing, what you are obviously doing...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I have been pointing to the Tea Party as an example for comparison. Two specific people got so distracted by the bright, shiny object that they tried to tell me all day that the Tea Party is wrong. Which is just not the point, but enjoy your argument.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

There is NO comparison. That's my point.

Contrast? That I'll buy, but there is NO fair comparison.

You just refuse to accept that, so of course things will not go well in this conversation.


[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 9 years ago

Hate them or not, they are pushing legislation they want. OWS is not. This is the comparison. I know you two both see it. The question is, why do you not take the question head on instead of party bating.

I like OWS not having candidates, but then I am also not afraid of leaving the sanctuary of the party tent.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

OWS is more successful than the tea party because in one year they have seized the national dialogue and made it popular to question corp control of the govt.

Taxing the wealthy, Student debt environmental protection, public option, Citizens United. Jobs, mtg help, fin reform are all being pushed by politicians that OWS is not endorsing.

We have done that without getting into politics, & without money from big corps.

Tea party is just a continuation of 30 years of corp 1% effort to push their agenda. They have been very successful for 30 years. but in 1 year OWS has created a real challenge 30 years to 1. If we keep it going we will win easily.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 9 years ago

Thats a far better answer then you've given yet.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Thx. It's true.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

They are pushing the legislation the (R)epelican'ts want.

They are pulling that party farther to the "right" as their funders, the Kochs et al. want.

Please notice the (R) after their names.

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 9 years ago

shooz, this is a real disappointment. You didn't even attempt to address the question. Starting to border on the obsessive with the partisan bit.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago


This was partisan to begin with. Talk about a disappointment, besides, we're all partisan anyway, so why try and use it as an insult.

PS: Talk about avoidance. Are you trying to tell me the teabagge(R)s aren't full on (R)epelican't?

Of course they are.....They were designed to be exactly that.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I'm pretty sure that your post is about ideology and conspiracy theories, which is not what I was talking about. So thanks for playing, but try again next time.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Why are you lying about me?

Why are you lying about the teabagge(R)s?

Shall I begin lying about you?

I'm not playing.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Left/right is unreleated.

I've heard everything you've said.




Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The fact that there's nothing to believe or not believe reaffirms that you either can't read or you don't.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Now you've just degraded into meaningless false insults.

Please refrain from these schoolyard bullying tactics of the candidate Romney.

We disagree. And I don't believe you.

Let's leave it at that.

If you don't have anything of substance left you should just be an adult & admit you've lost the debate.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

That may be, but can't you see how that's irrelevant to the topic of the conversation on this page?

There are a few people on this site who are so foaming-at-the-mouth partisan that they're not even capable of having a conversation about anything else. Is that what's happening here?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

You praise the tea party I knock 'em down. I think my response is just equally partisan.

relevance is simply that you are continuing to praise the tea party when you have said repeatedly you want to discuss wealth inequity & corruption/money in politics.

Somehow you keep gettin forced to discuss those very successful tea party.

Foaming much?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Your determination to knock the Tea Party down, and your mistaken notion that I'm praising them, is really making me sad. You're not even capable of participating in this conversation because you're so preoccupied with Democrats versus Republicans. If I say that the New York Giants won the Superbowl, does that make me a Giants fan?

By talking about the Tea Party, I'm trying to point to a similar grassroots protest movement that managed to advance their agenda. When I say that they "succeeded" in advancing their agenda, I'm not cheerleading for them. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism about what Occupy could be. Well, I take that back, I was trying to point out what Occupy could be a year ago. Now I no longer think that Occupy is capable of anything like that. The fact that you're not even capable of having a conversation about it without telling me about how much you hate conservatives reinforces that opinion.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I don't hate conservatives. That's a lie! I just recognize they are working to push the corp 1% agenda, whose policies are at the roots of all our problems. That's all. We just disagree.

"similar grassroots movement"? Whaaaaaat!? The tea party is created by the 1% corp plutocrats to create a fake grassroots cover, in order to run republicans who support the corp 1% agenda.

OWS is a real grass roots movement who have chosen to agitate from outside the system. So there is no similarity at all.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

That's the standard apology that I hear from Occupiers for their failure to change the system like the Tea Party did. The conspiracy theories about the Koch brothers apparently explain why OWS can never achieve that kind of level of success. But that's a defeatist outlook.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

OWS ain't tryin to do that. And the tea party is not real! it is just a front for corp 1%. It's just right wing wackos as always representing the corp 1%.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

OWS isn't trying to change the system? I think you're wrong about that. OWS would really like to change the system. They just can't get it together enough to accomplish anything.

If you want to say, "We can't change anything because the insiders keep us down", then I would point to the Tea Party to show that it is possible. But apparently your response to that is that the Tea Party didn't really change anything at all. Therefore, it's not possible for OWS to do change anything either. Defeatist.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

OWS is not trying to change the system by electing candidates!

OWS has already made change by creating the langauage to counter the corp 1% agenda of austerity. Without playing the polictical game OWS has made the idea of taxing the wealthy and ending corp control a major force in America.

OWS has done this in 1 year. The efforts of the corp 1% have been in the works for 30 years! So OWS has been muchMORE successful that the tea party!.


[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

How did OWS counter austerity, if the Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts over two trillion dollars from the federal budget?

Two groups: one is aimed at austerity, the other is aimed at fighting it. Over two trillion in budget cuts over 10 years. And in your mind, the group fighting austerity won?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

OWS was formed after that minuscule deal.

the country is moving towards the ideals of OWS, and that is what represents success. OWS has done it without selling their souls to politics and the corp 1% billionaire plutocrats.

That is a big success.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

im sorry, but it seems like you did not get my point. What can politicians do? Can they solve problems? Most of them are lawyers and businessmen. Ask any of your ideal candidates: How can we increase agricultural yield without exhausting the soil? How can we eliminate eutomobile accidents and deaths? How can we bridge the difference between nations? I can assure you they have no answer to those questions, or ANY question that requires technical problem solving. So, back to my original point: First of all we cannot have democracy when people are so uneducated about what makes things tick in this world in the first place. Suppose 51% of the population wanted something completely irrational and unsound, should they be allowed to have it happen? So what im saying is, major decisions should be arrived at, NOT made. And they can be done through scientific analysis, by professionals in the fields of ecology, psychology, automation, engineering, etc. THATS what we need, not some politician who write up new policies that dont mean squat.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Whether or not a politician can solve problems depends on your opinion of what the problems are. The Tea Partiers believe that the problem is big government, and so yes, politicians within that big government can work to make it smaller. Occupiers tend to believe in things like bank regulation and progressive taxation, but they don't have the will to make it happen. They'd apparently rather whine endlessly about it than actually elect candidates to do something about it.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

and it isnt my opinion, I could give less of a shit about what my opinion is, since it is based on zero research and merit. Facts are facts however. The problems of today are not monetary related, or related to political policy. They have to do with the unsustainability of our current system which wastes every resource for the sake of profit. They have to do with the hindrance that money places on the purchasing power of the poor to feed and clothe themselves. They have to do with the dangerous and inefficient transportation system we have that kills 40,000 people in the US alone per year. You see, people are looking at problems WITHIN the system, and trying to deal with these small symptoms, while my group sees the entire system as the disease that needs to be gotten rid of. Politics will go down in history as the centerstage of the horror stories future generations will tell their children.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

to show you that im not talking out of my ass, the studies I talked about are: in regards to food wasted- www.nextgenerationfood.com/media-news/infographics/100303-food-waste.png In regards to automation of work and labor: Alliance Capital study of 20 largest economies from 1995 to 2002

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

my question for you is: What is the point of banks, money, and taxes? When it has been proven that we can provide material and resource abundance to everyone in the planet. A study done years ago found that the 30-40% of all food produced in the US and England that is wasted every years can feed the entire planet 3 times over! Other studies have shown that we can easily automate every Job today, and to move onto newer ventures of maximizing the human mental potential. In a world where 25,000 children die every day due to starvation and preventable diseases, this is unacceptable. And in a future world (future can be NOW) where equal resources (organic food, clean water, efficient transportation and housing, free top notch education and laboratories) can be provided to everyone through utilization of scientific and technological methods, who the hell even needs politicians? Or money? You have to understand that this mentality that money has always been around and always shall is a very dangerous and outdated one. Homo Sapien has been around earth for 200,000 years, and only roughyl 10,000 of those years has been with money. And with the debt collapses, unemployment, wars, depressions, and poverty we are faced today, it is critical to understand that this monetary system is collapsing for a good reason! Its usefulness has been long overdue.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 9 years ago

We can provide resource abundance to everyone? Who "proved " that. What will be the energy source?

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

We already have resource abundance. Just go to any grocery store, shopping center, mall etc. Look at the mass of items, foods, and other accessories that will simply sit there if not "bought" and paid for. During the Great Depression, people had no money or jobs to be able to purchase things, however all the factories were still there, the earth had not suffered an ecological blow, so the resources were unchanged, however we had a financial problem, so even though things could have ben provided for everyone, we had no "jobs" to purchase. Basically a very sad reality that people fail to recognize time and time again. Manufacturing is basically automated at this point anyway, at least the majority of it, and the rest of the labor force is soon to be phased out. And speaking of energy, we have large variety of renewable energies that we can tap into. Just to give you an example: based on a 2006 MIT report, Geothermal energy, which is the conversion of liquid to vapor as it rises through the earth's crust, is said to have a 13,000 zettajoule potential. The total energy consumption of the earth is somewhere around a half zettajoule. If we tap into just 2000 zettajoules of energy we can energize the planet for the next 4000 years. Thats geothermal alone!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Earlier today I was explaining to somebody new that Occupy is a tug of war between anti-govenment anarchists and big-government liberals, with the balance made up by singularity futurists and conspiracy theorists. Hello, singularity futurist. You can't vote for the singularity, so I was hoping for something more immediately practical.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

Why is it that everything has to have a label? Have you studied all of these things you speak of to really know what I am and what I represent? Your making premafacia associations with things that are within your closed frame of mind, without even giving the material I present a slim chance. What is it about my point that you disagree with? Or are you just gonna go around and label me left and right for being communist, anarchist, liberal, etc. Its as if these ideologies are the ONLY things that humanity has ever known and that anyone who speaks of human unity and providing abundance to everyone on the planet MUST BE A COMMUNIST! Immediately practical? Do you know that there is no such thing as an immediate fix to this mess? Like I said, you will NEVER fix things within the system that the financial powers control, its all catered to their advantage, and talking politics is self defeating to begin with, since politicians CANNOT solve problems, they are not trained to do so. Politicians are put there to keep things the way they are, not to change things. You looked at none of the information I presented you obviously, instead you pass judgement on me being a singularity futurist, whatever that means. Have you read any books by Buckminster Fuller? How about Jacque Fresco? Carl Sagan? Im guessing no, because if you had one iota of an interest, you wouldnt be passing labels lef and right. Thats the disappointment with OWS, no one is working together. Instead of recognising empirical fundamental truths and siding with the natural progression of the human race, OWS is a battleground for people to just push their opinionated ideologies.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You deny being a singularity futurist -- and then you mention Jacques Fresco? That was pretty funny.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

Well I dont go about it like that, never head of that term. But again like I said, what is it that you disagree with on my points? You dont even debate about anything, your labeling me as if the label is enough to stop someone in their tracks. Very narrow minded I gotta say. Im not trying to insult, but you are frustrating me and Im only providing factual information

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, if your solution is a resource-based economy then that's the end of this conversation, because this thread is about practical solutions, and avoiding a pointless exercise in futility. The Zeitgeist Movement people were here in full force for months and they already saturated this site with fantasies about robot-controlled techno-communist utopias in a post-scarcity world of the future.

Now, back to reality...

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

ok, whatever you wanna say... Money is not a reality, so go and dream, because thats what the american dream has always been, something that ONLY exists for the 1% If you have any solutions I would like to listen, but it seems like your still talking from a very narrow framework of mind. Communist? Utopia? First of all, you dont even know what communism was, it still had police, military, prisons, crime, etc. because everything was in a state of scarcity, and you fail to realize these things. As far as Utopia, a resource based economy is not a utopia, its just a whole lot better than what we got. There is no final frontier, and an RBE could have been realized a hundred years ago. Your just way too immature it seems to take it seriously. You talk about practical solutions, yet I havent seen a single solution from you in regards to any of our major problems right now, you keep talking about politicians being elected as if they are the ones who have created everything in the world for us. I wish you would actually look into the concept, but your stuck in your state of mind.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes I agree, I've read a lot of Alan Watts. Money isn't wealth, money is just a representation of wealth. Ever read Accelerando? About agalmics?

Now do you have something practical to contribute to the 21st century, or are you going to go back to fantasizing about robot-driven cities of the future where nobody needs money?

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

ok, I see...your sucking me into an insult contest, which I wont get into. Im not into WWE style communication. I dont compete, so thanks for the chat, but we got nothing across unfortunately. Just realize this, this monetary system will collapse, and it will become more fascist as it collapses, and unfortunately the majority of people still havent realized the root causes of our problems. You obviously have not addressed root causes. You havent STILL presented ONE solution to anything. Im wasting my time

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Thisnwhole thread that's a year old is about the solution that I've suggested, which is participating in our democracy in order to make our government more responsive to our concerns. Whereas you're spouting science fiction about a world where all of our concerns are irrelevant. That's great and all, but I'm trying to talk about this century. Our lifetime.

(You really should check out Accelerando. It's a classic that I think is right up your alley.)

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

so your saying since its not going to happen in your lifetime, lets in futility, try to change things within a system that is ruthlessly owned and operated by financial elites. Um....how are you gonan do that? Are you gonna outfinance them? Using your magical money machine? There is NO way we can change squat within this system, stop fooling yourself. What is democracy anyway? Do you even know what it means? Demos-People , Kratis-Rule. How can the people rule? By allowing an open vote system? How is that fair though if the majority of the public have no clue whatsoever about how to improve, say...more convenient transportation, production of food without exhausting the soil, energy independance from fossil fuels, creation and maintenance of more efficient city systems? THATS what we need to talk about with people, not democracy, which is long been outdated, and in today's world it is a retarded idea. You really assume that democracy is the ultimate form of problem solving, when in fact its not, since its a political process. Peace

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

Vote - or let the tea potty win!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, that was my point a year ago. But the larger point was that you have to field your own candidates to vote for, or else you're left with no choice but to vote for the establishment.

So now Occupy has no hope except to have "hope" in Obama and his Democratic Party establishment.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I think that there are OWS candidates running as Dems or Ind. (Warren, Sanders, L James, And others) Just as the tea party VP candidate is Repub.

I think also many more dems are coming to support and push variations of OWS issues. (tax the 1%, etc) Much more must be done to get OWS issues addressed by the "dem Process".

If we can grow the movement, increase the protests we could have an affect from outside by continuing to provide dems with the terms, issues, & leverage to fight against the tea party corp backed agenda.

Co opting the dem party has begun, you can hear it in their rhetoric and see it in their proposals, and platform.

It IS happening whether OWS recognizes it or not. Whether we LIKE it or not.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

How about finding 50 congressional districts that are "vulnerable" to real progressive candidates. Working 2012-2013 to find these CD. Then 2013-2014 we run OUR people.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Great idea. Occupy the congress!

[-] 2 points by marvelpym (-184) 9 years ago

Where's your cone?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

My non banned, slap on the wrist punishment was over after a few hours.

But enough about me. Did you join the marches this w/e.?

[-] 0 points by marvelpym (-184) 9 years ago

Glad you weren't banned, Socko.

I was waving doughnuts on a stick at cops, doing my best for freedom and democracy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

That is not the approach I prefer in dealing with the police.

But good luck to you in all your good efforts

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The election cycle happening right now was Occupy's chance to become a political force. The Tea Party proved that it's possible. Then Occupy proved that they're not capable of the same thing. Now Occupy is watching the election from the sidelines and rooting for the re-election of the establishment candidate, praying that he remembers them after the election.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

You are mainly correct. I do meet many "both parties suck Occupiers" but most are dem leaning progressives.

I agree thatOWS could have had more influence this cycle, but I also think they have begun to pull the dems from the rightward drift they have been on for 30 years. Dems have a long way to go.

But theprotests have given many dems and the country the language to fight the 1% tea party corp agenda. The dems have incorporated the OWS issues in their platform, and rhetoric, & proposals.

In the Pres election we only have 2 viable choices. Much must change to improve that debacle.

I heard an Occupy founder state last night on young turks that the movement has a radical (malcome X fight outside the system) wing, and a reform (MLK fight inside the system) wing that must embrace eachother and work together.

It will take years. The movement can still force change if we can stop fighting with each other.

The co opting of the dem party has begun. Whether we like it or not.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

But can't you see how quickly the Tea Party co-opted the Republican Party? The Republican Party didn't want to be the party of fiscal responsibility, they wanted to be the party of Terri Schaivo. Until the Tea Party elected candidates who hijacked the federal budget until they got the cuts that they wanted. Now Sarah Palin posts about QE3 on Facebook instead of about abortion.

That's what success looks like. Occupy is the counter example.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I agree the tea party through massive corp 1% money have succeedat moving the repubs even further right. They indeed put in 60+ House members. in 2010. They have had a real affect. But they have been so extreme that they couldn't really get their agenda passed. And their success is arguably one reason why the OWS movement began.

It was a natural outcome. The difference is OWS is not sheep following the 1% agenda blindly. As always progressive/liberals are more diverse and cannot be organized as easily.

But despite that we have already moved the needle and had an affect.

It will continue, If the movement continues. The movement must accept a 2 pronged approach an inside game of reformers, and an outside game of radicals.

Stop fighting amongst ourselves over tactics. Embrace all non violent paths to the change that will benefit the 99%.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The Tea Party couldn't get their agenda passed? We're you not paying attention when the Tea Party hijacked the Republican Party during the debate over raising the debt ceiling? You missed the part where they got what they wanted? You're not aware of the strain between the GOP and the Tea Party over all of that? It hasn't occurred to you that one of those Tea Partiers is running for Vice President now?


[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

I do see how they have taken over the repubs. And they have succeeded at watering down the progressive agenda. they shut the govt down but didn't get anything for it.

Now they are screaming about the coming sequestering they forced on us.

What law did they pass. Even Lyin Rtan has never gotten any law of consequence passed.

Now if the repubs take the senate and the Presidency the Tea party WILL get something passed. But no they have passed nothing of their agenda. Only slowed progressive agenda.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

They won trillions of dollars in budget cuts, including cuts to defense. Did you really not know that? While Occupiers were marching around with signs about the evil military-industrial complex, the Tea Party was working on cutting billions from the defense budget. And they succeeded.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

Tea party is NOT looking to cut defense. Pres Obama did that over the objections of the right wing.

We gotta disagree on that.

Tea party pressured for cuts. Dems cave in a little, but the tea party has gotten very little of what they want.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The defense cuts came about because the super committee failed to agree on other things to cut. None of those cuts would have happened at all if the Tea Party hadn't pressured Republicans to reject any deal that didn't Include immediate budget cuts.

Maybe we should shift now to another example of the Tea Party advancing their fiscal responsibility agenda: public labor unions. Do you deny them that accomplishment also?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

There has a massive effort to bust labot unions, Wisconsin, Michigan, Others. They have had some success but recent court finding undid the wisconsin effort And I think they lost in Michigan. Not really sure but you areright they have had some success. But I say only a little. And not at the fed level.

They tried to destroy the letter carriers but that failed.

And the super committe deal only included military cuts over the objection of the right wing that was not a tea party victory. In addition the dems protected the poorest people from the cuts so I think we cann hold and defeat the tea party.

Grow this movement. Pull the dems from the right. Let the tea party extremists cannibalize themselves.

It will come. Biggest threat now is the repub voter suppression, tea party true the vote efforts and such.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

If it hadn't been for the Tea Party, there would have been no debt ceiling debate in the first place. There would have been no cuts. Before the Tea Party, the debt ceiling was periodically raised over and over and over, with no debate.

I'm kind of shocked that you're so unaware of the activities and successes of your political enemies.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

The debt ceiling debate was ridiculous. Never before has a party been so irresponsible as to threaten the credit worthiness of this nation for petty political agenda. And they did it to cut from the poor and middle class! All focus on the deficit, & debt is just repub (starve the beast) strategy to cut middle class, & poor programs.

Tea partiers have no souls. When the credit agency downgraded the US they sited the congressional obstinance. So they failed at getting the cuts they wanted, they failed to stop raising the debt ceiling and they succeeded at putting military cuts on the table. In addition they came out looking like selfish, nasty, irresponsible children.

You are delusional if you think the tea party downgrade was a success.

Now let's see what happens when the election is over and they have to deal with the sequestration deal they made on cuts.

LMFAO. Buncha greedy, vindictive, heartless amateurs.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

It was a success -- for them. They have their own ideas about what the country's problems are, which leads to their own (clearly defined) agenda that they're successfully advancing. I don't necessarily agree with them, I'm just pointing them out as an example of a group that has been successful at advancing their agenda.

Looking at Occupy by contrast, they haven't succeeded in agreeing on an agenda. Much less advancing it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 9 years ago

The teaparty selfish, greedy, heartless, agenda has failed miserably BECAUSE the OWS movement has changed the national dialogue and made it possible to challenge the empty incorrect policies of the Koch head funded tea party/republican base.

You are wrong! Tea party is an utter failure. They will be gone before the OWS message of economic fairness goes.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 9 years ago

voting for the status quo is a waste of time.

Voting for alternative options is a revolution.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Then why are there no alternative options on the ballot? Why are so many Occupiers campaigning for Obama? Why is "Repelican't" one of the most common words on this site? Why was a cartoon depicting Paul Ryan masturbating to a picture of Ayn Rand the first thing that I saw when I came back here after months?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 9 years ago

Because party hacks flood the site and impose their own Obama/Romney agenda to distract from real issues. Any real issues they talk about they directly then associate to their D/R agenda and dismiss anything that doesn't make their candidate look like an idol.

They're pushing the status quo to solve the problems of the status quo. They don't realize they're even doing it. They accept words like casualties and blowback. They dismiss anything that doesn't support their D/R pusher agenda.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, and they have a lot of help from Occupiers who don't have the discipline to give up the left/right dichotomy to focus on political corruption or wealth inequality.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

Do you still feel this way TJ? I was looking at an old thread and saw this.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

The window has closed on the idea of the Occupy 'movement' translating its early energy into political representation. It's not even worth talking about any more.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

hey I comment here a month ago, "I might of said it softer" I was so navie back then :).

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

Well here's where I'm coming from, I saw this trend about thirty years ago, (the wealth thing) when I looked at the numbers, I have been looking for any sign of a social force to counter the forces aligned with accumulation. Throughout the years I could never see any such force, lots of people concerned about environment, healthcare, but the fundamental problem of wealth inequality was never talked about, till now. This has been (and has always been), for empires, the central problem.

I come here to tell the truth, I hope that people will see it and act that’s all I can do. This is the first actual chance we have had in my lifetime, if we are smart and stay on track, wealth inequality, we might transition to a sustainable economy that could last till the world burns, (we missed that boat in 2000).

So I come and tell the truth, it’s not always what fits what some would like it to be, I took the survey on the front page a while back, and they had all kinds of different things listed as activities that you could consider “supporting” OWS, but working on the forum was not one of them. So I know what “they” think of “us” I understand the concept “those that do get to say”, why should we listen to ideas that come from those who are not even willing to risk arrest? After all surly they already have all the answers and how best to present the talking points right? This is the same belief held by the 1% when they indicate that those who pay the taxes should determine the policy. There is a small chance that people in the movement will see their error, and come to where ideas fight their way to the top and then we win, but we probably won’t do that, I know.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Five months later... OWS has failed to field any candidates at all during this election cycle, whereas the Tea Party has a candidate running for Vice President. And most Occupiers now appear to support Obama and the Democratic Party establishment. So you can keep hoping that Occupy will rise up (somehow?) to make substantial changes, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

you forget about Elizabeth Warren? we have to get into the primaries and drop this apolitical carp if we want to get something done.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is saying all of the same things now as she was saying before Occupy, and OWS didn't help her candidacy in any way. She started her Senate campaign before Occupy even existed. When she needed support, Occupy was still too busy arguing about whether or not to participate in politics in the first place.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

I agree, (I might have said it a bit softer)

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 10 years ago

Really nice post Techjunkie. We (people) can make a difference. We do it every day. After how many years of not paying attention, just LOOK at the difference we have all, more or less, made. The consequences and real life tragedies of wallstreet malfeasance and huge insolvent banks joined at the hip with capital hill cronies... awareness is key. That's the biggest hurdle. As we begin to realize the scope, the magnitude of the fraud and theft, of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, clarity will rule the day, and the emperors will be running stark-naked everywhere for all the world to see, without clothes.

We made them rich and powerful with our dollars. We can change our minds and buy local. We vote with our dollars every day, and look at the difference it has made.

[-] 1 points by oaklandcami (71) 10 years ago

Okay, I am 100% with you on this, and I shrug people off when they tell me that I shouldn't vote (I mean... what?), or that I should vote third party (because, realistically, what is that going to do?), but how do we hold our politicians accountable? Our Democrats are often just as susceptible to outside influence as Republicans. This is what I was talking about in the other thread. We need to show some muscle through more than just our power as voters.

[-] 1 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 10 years ago

I agree! In this country we do not have to take up arms to change the government. The tea Party did in the last election by voting in conservatives that represented their views. Most of us feel that that non of the present parties represent us, the 99%. We can make a difference. In the upcoming election we can and should vote against every incumbent. This will send a bigger message than a demonstration. Meanwhile we have to form a new party, a Moderate party. There is a website called the American Moderate Party, if we all get behind that movement and start getting it registered in every state we will be able to make a big difference in how "OUR" government operates. Forget about not voting. get out and vote against every incumbent, for an independent if possible!!

[-] 1 points by zooeyhall (2) 10 years ago

This article is a brilliant summation of the OWS situation. I am 100% on the side of these people, but I am fearful it will (and is) degenerating into a pointless exercise in futility. An interesting street theater of the peasants letting off a little steam. I'm a 57 year old and have talked to many young people. And what amazes me is that only a handful of them vote or even can identify which candidates stand for what.

Please PLEASE...OWS!!! Don't spin-off into energy wasting and ultimately useless goofiness and impractical "pie in the sky" ideas! Remember the Civil Rights movement had a plan and real leaders and knew where to apply pressure. Same thing for the Votes for Women movement 100 years ago. It's not good enough to just protest "greed". Can the silly Guy Fawkes masks and get your act together.

[-] 1 points by zooeyhall (2) 10 years ago

This article is a brilliant summation of the OWS situation. I am 100% on the side of these people, but I am fearful it will (and is) degenerating into a pointless exercise in futility. An interesting street theater of the peasants letting off a little steam. I'm a 57 year old and have talked to many young people. And what amazes me is that only a handful of them vote or even can identify which candidates stand for what.

Please PLEASE...OWS!!! Don't spin-off into energy wasting and ultimately useless goofiness and impractical "pie in the sky" ideas! Remember the Civil Rights movement had a plan and real leaders and knew where to apply pressure. Same thing for the Votes for Women movement 100 years ago. It's not good enough to just protest "greed". Can the silly Guy Fawkes masks and get your act together.

[-] 1 points by NoneyaBiznazz (84) from Findlay, OH 10 years ago

We need OWS People RUNNING FOR OFFICE!!! Don't trust a politician just because he claims to sympathize with your cause.

We need people to stand up and run for office. We will be your campaign organizers. We will spread the word.

[-] 1 points by ARealAmerican (23) 10 years ago

Yes, vote.

And let me remind you that:

  • The Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2010
  • Obama controlled the White House since 2009
  • The Democrats had complete control of Washington for Obama's first 2 years
  • We are currently in an economic mess

Do the math...

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 10 years ago

Voting would be great if we didn't live in the best democracy money can buy. The problem is this DEMOCRACY + CAPITALISM = OLIGARCHY. We need to take the money out of politics before we can have any meaningful democracy in this country. check this out and tell me if you agree http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-concise-demand-prohibit-private-spending-for-p/

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I don't disagree with that goal at all. But the path to that proposed change is participation in the democratic system as it exists, warts and all. That's a surprisingly unpopular idea among this group, and until it becomes more popular, goals like the one that you're suggesting will be unattainable.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 10 years ago

That's why I'd like to see a unified goal of taking back and reforming our democracy. I don't think it'll change by just voting and I don't think it will change just taking to the streets so it will have to be a combination of the two.

[-] 1 points by AlainD (6) from Meyrin, GE 10 years ago

How do I express with my vote that in my opinion no party proposes a political project I believe in?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

By creating a new movement to elect candidates who DO propose political projects that you believe in. The Tea Party proved that it's possible and they illustrated exactly how to do it. The rest is up to you. If you continue to boycott the democratic process then it will continue to be used against you.

[-] 2 points by Avoice (81) 10 years ago

Does a movement have to provide its own candidate? You're right that the Tea Party did provide candidates but this platform is surviving based on financial support of Mr. Koch so they have to stay within a set parameter or else find themselves without any financial backing. What if a movement or this movement simply created a voting Block not attached to any one platform or candidate. That would provide a voice strong enough to move your own platform through Washington's corridors. Businessmen use this power to push their agenda's regardless of who gets in power. The power of an independent voting Block would bring back democracy to our government. The first step is for people to realize that they are far from helpless and weak. Their power is in their vote.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Yes, you make government more responsive to your concerns by electing your candidates. The Tea Party is not the only example. Government didn't represent the interests of minorities before the civil rights movement. What did they do to change that? They fought for their voting rights and they elected minority candidates, who were then responsive to the concerns of minorities. They didn't just pull out the defeatist rationalization that the Good Ole Boy Network would always use their power to keep minorities down. They changed the system and made the Good Ole Boy Network less powerful.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 10 years ago

I could also make the argument that although minorities have won the right to vote it was their power to elect both white and black candidates that expanded their voice in our democratic process. I can also make the argument that minorities should use more of their power of voting to bring change in their own neighborhoods. Upstate in Albany one corporation will receive 1 billion dollars in total taxpayer funded money which included interest payment costs. Is there any plans in Albany or Washington DC to bring tech city jobs to Harlem and why not?

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 10 years ago

Voting is the mechanism that corporate America fears the most. Let's state some facts here.

  1. Most people don't vote (there's no app for it) 2.Corporate America has influenced our form of state and federal government for several decades. This is not going to change. Corporate money finances the Republican and Democratic Party. This is not going to change. Party bosses use this corporate money to keep politician in line. Politicians who don't agree to this term don't receive financial help to get elected or remain elected.

These are facts not based on any opinion. You have been given a form of government that works. It's main mechanism is the Vote. When you don't vote you delegate that power to someone else. Corporations love that delegation of power that is given to them. On Election Day you hold the power. What if every incumbent was voted out of office? You want to send a message to Washington DC and Albany NY? Vote out every incumbent and you will get back the government that represents all people.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

"There is no app for that." that was pretty funny, and actually kind of insightful. Maybe one of the ways that liberals can oppose some of the legislative gains made by Republicans recently that diminish voting rights for people who oppose them. Republicans want to make it harder for young people and minorities to exercise their voting rights, and they're successfully changing the system. Liberals should be fighting to make participation in he democratic process more accessible to everybody. The only way to do that is to participate in an imperfect system.

Maybe going as far as online voting isn't a good idea due to potential for fraud, but what about apps for voting registration assistance, and voter education, and other facets of the democratic process?

[-] 2 points by Avoice (81) 10 years ago

You are on to something. Voter registration drives are effective and apps that assist all individuals to register would be impressive. I think moderates in both political parties also support and encourage participation in our government process. I have been a fiscally conservative republican all my life and yet I don't identify with the Tea Party platform or this new type of conservative Republican politician that supported the deregulation of our banking system, the subsequent bailout of our banking system and providing tax incentives to corporations that ship jobs oversees like IBM. If we can vote out every incumbent then it's APP's for everyone!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I agree, I'm registered as a Republican but I don't feel that they represent me and I'm probably going to change to an independent because I consider myself a centrist. One problem here is that Republicans may have already made it illegal to do voter registration drives using mobile apps. Please take a look at the Rolling Stone article that I cited in the original post if you haven't already, it's horrifying.

I personally outsource jobs to other countries, because I can't find enough American workers who can do the job. And the people who I hire make more than the average American hourly wage of $33. I showed up here with suggestions for free training resources that would qualify people for the jobs that I have available, with the idea that maybe I might offer somebody here a job. I was branded as the enemy. Nobody was interested and plenty of people attacked me for it. Very sad and disappointing. This seems to be a movement largely made up of people who are boycotting the system entirely. Not just democracy but also capitalism.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 10 years ago

I like your idea of wanting to hire someone, I would like to see some kind of "marketplace" come out of OWS where people can offer each other work and other kinds of assistance. I have heard talk about it eventually happening, don't know if it will. Don't limit your perception of what's happening with OWS to what you read here, do you ever watch the Livestream?

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 10 years ago

You can't get frustrated with any Occupy Wall Street person. This movement is in its early infancy. I understand your point and I understand why some people may attack you in this forum. However, you know that any criticism is nothing personal. You would have given up sharing your thoughts if that was the case. I believe in capitalism and democracy. I've also never swayed from understanding just how strong the power of even one vote can be.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 10 years ago

And who do we vote for? It does not matter who gets elected. The same shit will continue. I voted for Obama...damn what a disappointment. But no way would I vote for a Republican....their goals are simply not the same as mine. So what is left? Ron Paul? If you take a close look at Libertarianism it is sort of the frontier mentality not much above the level of anarchy. A sort of everybody fend for them self. But it would take care of the population problem...the elderly, infirm, etc. would all be dead from lack of social services.

So what is left? How about ballots that contain No Vote. Which would mean a majority of No Vote would force elections until the people are satisfied with the choices.

[-] 1 points by urbanrage (8) 10 years ago

I kind of like that idea...

[-] 1 points by LouieLouie (11) 10 years ago

Bad Cop No Donut !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 10 years ago

Voting is irrelevant if the electoral process is to be continually dominated by corporate and private institutional interests. So long as they maintain power over the electoral system and sway through lobbying strategies currently in place, our only options from mainstream corporate candidates will be fringe candidates with whom we still may or likely will not totally agree with.

Lets clean up the playing field before we decide who our star pitchers will be...


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

we vote by secret ballot and have authorities tell us the result

they only way our votes could count is to do so publicly

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 10 years ago

So, do you thinktrying to merge the tea party and the occup wall street people into a thirdbparty is futile? That we can not overcome our differences? I would argue that the current power system wants undivided so they may have a monopoly on power. I think a third party is an excellent idea. And I agree that election drivescare deffinently a must. But we need to mobilize together if we are going to end this cronie corporate fascism that through banking cartels have indebted usvallinto their servitude.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Personally I think that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are diametrically opposed. But it's kind of hard to tell because Occupy Wall Street still doesn't know exactly what it stands for.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 10 years ago

The one communally that sticks out to e s ending the federal reserve and the global banking cartels. This tells me that this is the real threat... Thoughts?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

The Fed is on your side. Their function is to use monetary policy to keep the economy stable. Before the Fed, there was a recession every year or two. The Fed is trying to keep inflation low and employment high. That's what you want.

[-] 1 points by urbanrage (8) 10 years ago

Your deceived...the fed is on the side of their share holders, the 6 largest banks in the World...

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 10 years ago

If they are trying to keep inflation low, then why do they keep putting more dollars into circulation? I thought inflation was created by devaluing the dollar by having too many dollars in circulation, thus causing a too much supply vs demand, lowering the value ofthe dollar. Thus goods cost more, creating inflation. If inflation is what the Fed istrying todo, they have had a horrible track record.

If they are trying to create jobs, then why, through austerity measures, would they cut funding to the public sector, and increase cooperate monopolies in communities, thusvshutting down main street and putting all wealth in a select corporate few interest?

I propose an alternative theory... The Fed actually wants to devalue the dollar, create a debtor economy, so that all wealth trickles up, giving them control of how it trickles down so they can control society forteirbown wealth generation.

Do you really think the people who run the fed havete peoples' interest in mind, or do they have their ownself interest in mind? If I can generate wealth for my famiy today at the expense of another tomorrow, so be it. That is survival of testiest, and free markets are there to eliminate waste and to reward success withbprofit. The invisible and will even out what is good for society, so I do not have to worry about my actions, just the results to my bottom line. That is the Fed's maxim. It is a private business. And a business is in business for a profit, not the people's set interest.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I'm not going to discuss conspiracy theories. Please just learn more about the Fed before adopting them as your boogeyman.

By the way, have you ever considered what would happen if there were deflation? Just curious.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 10 years ago

Deflation would occur if the dollar became more scarce right? Or, if people believed they could get more for their dollar later? If wages stayed flat, then true earnings would go up. Lending would go down, because the interest on the loans would not be of value, which people fear would kill the economy, but this might actually be what the economy needs to escape this roller coaster. I think the banks are the ones that suffer in a deflation, and it is their "boogeyman" to keep their profits.

As far as conspiracy goes: you would agree that politicians talk out the side ofvtheir neck to get elected,right? Why would you think the Fedwould be any different? If you look around thevworld you can see evidence of what the global financial banking system wants to do here in the US. Examples of this include Argentina, Chili, Bolivia, Honduras, Mexico, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Britian, etc.

If the banks believe in free markets,then when they went bankrupt we shoul have let them fall, debt should had been forgiven, and the US should have began it's own currency, not continued the federal reserve notes we currently use. The whole economic mess is simply because we keep propping up a failed system that generates wealth by fractural reserve lending, where no good is created, just debt, which is a tax, which retards aneconomy.

Maybe you should take a closer look at the fed, who isin charge, and who's interest they serve. If you believe they serve our interest, then I guess wevwill soon find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.... :)

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 10 years ago

First of all in relation to deflation, I think you are misunderstanding the consequences. Deflation greatly favors those that already have. It increases the value of a single dollar and by doing so makes those who have concentrated wealth more wealthy.
The Fed is a very complicated organization and I am not supporting them wholeheartedly, however, you have to be very careful anytime you are playing with currency for the sake of equalizing the economic playing field. Check out Zimbabwe's inflation rates for instance. They got to the point that they had to discontinue their own currency.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 10 years ago

Right. But Zimbabwe was affected by Britain's financial market that devalued Zimbawe's currency for refusing to play ball will the global financial cartels. Because these cartels control financial currency in the name of stabilization, it gives them undemocratic control over nation's economies. The third world routinely shows us examples ofvwhat the global finical cartels eventually want to bring to the United States. Europe and Russia are currently experiencing the affects of these policies as we see Europe's financial system collapse, and Russia's oligarchies continue to oppress their people for their power and wealth.

I agree that deflation and inflation of the federal reserve note can cause problems. But if their was another currency, let us say US bonds, to replace the federal reserve note, that the government puts into circulation through interest free loans, then the global banking cartels would have less control over our economy. Debt would not equal banking wealth, and the dollar would better reflect the perceived value of the US economy.

Allowing the privatization of currency and currency specialization is what has allowed the global banking cartels to manipulate our economies for their own personal wealth, not the public good.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

only meaningful if we create a new third party. otherwise, its just a choice between corporate oligarchs who will in any case shaft us all and bring about the end of this civilization.











































[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 10 years ago

Not disagreeing with you but who's to say a 3rd party wouldn't be just as bad ?

2 party, 3 party, 10 party... If our politicians are allowed to be bought then we could have a million party's and it will be just more of the same.

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 10 years ago

thats certainly a problem we will need to face and solve. We are to say it won't be just as bad. Of course you do have a fine point and thats why organization and meaningful real research are paramount.

to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?

you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.

Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.

o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.

once again. there has never been a socialist or capitalist economy. in all instances such nations were oligarchies. using a mask and a con scam and telling their dupes and pwns that they were something other than oligarchy. the big hump to get over is that the USA oligarchy and the Soviet oligarchy are in on this lie against the rest of us TOGETHER. Neither of them was ever anything other than an oligarchy. both claimed some other system in order to have US fight over the ideals of THAT system while they secretly shafted us all playing a completely different game.



tech junkie. yes. this movement could and should become that party.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

So until there is a party that embodies your position on the issues that you think is important, you don't plan to participate in the democratic process? Couldn't this movement become that party?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

You think we have democracy? The problem is that we are not capable of participating in the political process because it has been entirely corrupted with money. 1% buys their representation in government 99% are left with the scraps. That is not democracy. Money speaks too loudly in our government and 99% of our voices are never heard. Voter registration drive? Nothing wrong with that but that is not going to solve the problem. Corruption is the problem. Once they get into office the big money grabs them to do their bidding and WILL NOT let go! They are forever beholden to the big money for re-election.

I just want my fair and equal representation.
We have to get the money out of the election process with publicly financed campaigns. And take back our democracy!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

You democracy is being taken away from you because you're not participating in it. Did you read the Rolling Stone article that I cited?

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 10 years ago

I think you are missing the broader picture. As the situation stands voting out this corrupt official and in that corrupt official is not going to change anything. We have been voting in and out a revolving door of officials for decades and none of them have been able to fight back the corruption that is ruling this country. The 99% have to fight that corruption. This is the beginning of a revolution. This is the gathering storm of a Financial War that may just shake the fabric of our society. But, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that our society needs to be shaken up. I think that, United, the 99% need to refuse the Credit System and bring the Banks to their knees so they will relinquish control of the Government back to the People. We need to stop paying our mortgages, car loans, insurance, medical bills, student loans, etc. We need to pull our money out of the Stockmarket, bonds, 401k's, etc. We need to show the Banks that We stand against their corrupt system of Capitalist Governance and that we want our Democratic Republic back. We do this not to get rid of Capitalism, or to punish the wealthy with new taxes, or to bring in any kind of Socialism. In fact we do this to remove Socialism for the wealthy 1% and have them return to the Capitalistic economy we live in. But, Capitalism is not our system of Government. So We the People have to rise up and fight this Financial Revolution. We have to play chicken with the economy on the brink of destruction and force the Banks and their Corporate pawns to leave our Government alone. Then, and only then, can we vote and have our voice truly heard at the polls.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

That's yet another creative rationalization for not participating in the democratic process. There are a lot of them on this site, and on this page in particular. While you're busy boycotting democracy and fantasizing about destroying banks, other people are successfully using the democratic process against you.

[-] 1 points by GeoffH (214) from Jacksonville, FL 10 years ago

I still vote, every election, every special election, every city election. I think that voting is important. But, I know we are not being heard no matter how much we voice our opinion at the polls. We just don't have the lobbyist or the donations to make ourselves heard.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

Yes, I don't see how this addresses monied political corruption.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

By not voting, you're enabling the corruption that you're complaining about. Because people who DO vote are effecting changes to our political system that you would probably refer to as "corruption".

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I do vote. I have NEVER missed an election cycle. But once my elected official is in office, he does not hear my voice. He listens and acts in the interest of the big money that put him/her there. Which is the same big money he will need to be re-elected. Who is he going to listen to?? Or sure , he'll throw me a few scraps here and there along the way, because he knows I will be back in the voting booth in 4 years. But he acts on behalf of the big money contributions! The entire political system is monied corruption run amok!! What world are you living in?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I don't disagree, but I do object to the defeatist rationalizations for not participating in the decorative process that are all over this site, and this page. I posted this page to try to nudge this protest toward effective action, instead of idle fantasy.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

There was a time when some people thought that the Civil Rights protest was idle fantasy. There was a time when some people thought that giving women the right to vote was idle fantasy.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

The civil rights movement accomplished what it did through focused, effective participation in the democracy that we had at the time, even though the system was rigged against them.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

They marched and protested, did they not?

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 10 years ago

Which drew attention to the problems. The creation of the Civil Rights act, however, was more than just the result of a march. It was the result of efforts to restructure the government's role in securing equal rights.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Yes, exactly. There is nothing at all wrong wih marching and protesting as long as you follow it up by voting.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I fully intend to vote.

[-] 1 points by Shazam (54) 10 years ago

Look up "Moral Suasion." If you believe the system is legally corrupt and morally evil then you wouldn't want to support it would you?

The ability to field a majority during an election should be secondary to the protection of property and human rights through the law. Democracy based only on the results of elections is why this country has ground to a halt and can not even have an honest political dialogue. An obsession with votes and winner take all solution is part of the problem. It guarantees we are all losers no matter who we voted for.

Democracy takes many forms and choosing how you participate or don't is freedom.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

The country hasn't ground to a halt, politically, for everybody. People who are successful at electing candidates who are responsive to their concerns are making political advances. At your expense. Please read the Rolling Stone article that I cited in the original post if you don't know that I'm talking about.

[-] 1 points by Shazam (54) 10 years ago

Ok, politicians seem to be putting large sums of money into endless campaigns so someone is happy. Sorry for the cliche, I should have said Congress is no longer able to pass legislation that is practical or fair so while I believe life will continue our freedoms and institutions that promote freedoms are under constant attack these days whether you vote or not. I vote more than most but in the end you really can't vote your conscience with 2 or 3 choices.

Americans will never win a voting war because the freedom to have loyal opposition will mean there will always be contested elections. Its healthy to have choices. More choices would be better...

But I believe the parties are in the business of elections and not the business of running the country based on consensus and a set of universal guiding principles. I swear if Obama thought a sunset was really pleasant and said so some idiot would send out a press release the next day criticizing pleasant sunsets. There is no honest dialogue that I can count on happening in the halls of government because people think they have to crush the opposition instead of work with them and get overly obsessed with voting without realizing that no matter what you do, you eventually have to pass legislation that keeps all 300 million Americans in business.

Changing the constitution is not unrealistic if our political system works. It is only unrealistic in a government in decline and unable to adapt to new conditions. We are ready for a change and while informed voting is part of the process so are street protests, boycotts, and the clarification of guiding principles. The Tea Party has disproportionate voting influence because their demographic actually does have a greater influence. That is why Bush won in 2000 and that is why a citizen in a state like Wyoming can an influence several times greater than someone in New York because of their guaranteed senate seats. Their vote is mathematically worth more in political capital.

I'm not saying not to vote, I'm just saying democracy can look like all kinds of things and there is a perfectly sound reason for not wanting to get involved with a process that you see as immoral. Take Spitzer. I voted for him and saw him speak. I thought good choice. Then I felt like I had helped enable a sick monster. My alternative was voting for someone I knew didn't agree with and I knew would not be seeking consensus within the state. Example of an election where everyone loses. 2010 was an election where we all lost.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

My name is Annie. I am a 40 year old business owner and mother of three. I have things to say to the organizers of the Occupy Wallstreet Protests to keep the momentum going but I don't know how or who to contact. If you find the following of interest, please do what you can to spread the word. Thanks.

MY WORRY: when it gets cold, this important protest will fizzle. MY IDEA: that we organize via facebook/twitter and choose a date where we completely evacuate wall street....in otherwords, one day we are there, the next we're not...all over country, the protests stop on purpose. that would make a serious impact.

THEN: we stage targeted "boycotts" that are announced, again, via facebook/twitter. for instance, the entire 99% does not shop for only one day at a different place and this place changes every single day. (after all we are not trying to put anyone out of business or do harm but make a point and show our power.) for instance, monday no amazon NOT ONE DIME...tuesday no starbucks...wednesday no arco...etc. Again, the company does not matter. All companies are culpable, even the good ones, because they are all part of the Wallstreet Machine. Our goal is not to shut down the country, after all we want to employ people. But we will no longer feel like helpless consumers that have no choice but to buy the "company stores" product no matter what the price. We have a choice...let’s choose!

AND THEN, TO EXPLAIN OUR PURPOSE: we will calculate the amount of money a company lost by losing 99% of the country's business and say... "hey, that's a lot of money in just one day." Now let's compare that to the modest and FAIR amount of tax we'd like you to pay...or “how much is that compared to the insane bonuses you give your CEO” etc etc etc.

BECAUSE: we are not trying to screw anyone, we just demand fairness.

AND: the best way to achieve fairness is to REGULATE Wallstreet and modify the tax code (i.e. add a tax bracket for millionaires, scrap overseas tax havens, introduce a modest financial transaction tax, revamp the estate tax, end preferential treatment on capital gains tax)

AND IN THE END: this is a relatively painless thing for all. the rich will still be rich. the free market will still be free (just not allowed to be as corrupt) and ALL OF US will enjoy our American citizenry without so much contempt for each other.

AND TO END WITH A SLOGAN THAT MATTERS: "when we all do better, we all do better."


PS If you think this could work please forward to as many people necessary and feel free to use any or all of my ideas to make this protest lead to positive policy change.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

If it were remotely realistic to get 99% of the American population to agree on a single course of action then you wouldn't need to boycott anything to accomplish the changes that you want, you could just participate in the democracy that we already have. It would be no problem to effect policy change if 99% of people agreed.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

No one thought Gandhi could mobilize large numbers of people to protest either. It obviously wouldn't be 99% of the population...only "the 99%" that are protesting...but the deal in this county is media hype and momentum. If it's cool and simple and focused people will do it. It might take a month but it could make a difference.

[-] 1 points by Shazam (54) 10 years ago

I like "when we all do better, we all do better." Wall Street killed the golden goose that was the middle class for a quick buck. Time to make them repent and cough up the dough needed to fix the mess they created. Passing the Jobs Bill and revising the tax code would be a start.

[-] 1 points by Rmarks1701 (103) 10 years ago

Why do people not want to vote? Simply because the people are jaded with the system, and jaded with the politicians. I am not legally able to vote (being a legal immigrant and not willing to give up my citizenship of my home country), but my wife is (being an American) and we have talked about this endlessly. What we have decided is that the number of politicians worth while to vote for is zero, nil, none. this is because no matter who we vote for, nothing will change. The system is set up against people who want to make such changes. Say we do decide to vote, and we vote someone in who promises sincerely that they will make the changes, the very first time the bill comes up to congress it will be voted out. Then to make even a small change, the guy chosen to elect has to give up some of his principles in order to garner support to make that very minor change.

As to what the solution is? I do not really know, unless we manage to change wholesale congress, the senate, the supreme court and each state individually.

[-] 1 points by MalcolmX (16) from Manassas, VA 10 years ago

The best thing to do is to create political pressure on the person who is -supposed- to be the progressive candidate.

Occupying Wall Street is a waste of time, they are not beholden to you.

Go to the White House and demand answers from the man who is an elected official, who ran on broken promises, who is crippling the progressive agenda and handing the country back to the corporate right-wing.

Vote for another Democrat. Threaten Obama's intoxicating hold on the left and he will have to answer you for political survival.

[-] 1 points by IdlenessAndMoney (13) 10 years ago

I concur; to make this a lasting political force, it must spring board into a voting block

[-] 1 points by MLJ (7) 10 years ago

I think feelings of futility in the face of the conservative movement and the Tea Party are perfectly justified. The U.S. is a center-right nation--just look at the polls, 41% self-professed conservative/ 20% liberal--and Obama's election was an anomaly resulting from white guilt and Obama's celebrity status with young voters. I don't expect it to happen again. The most sensible thing for true Progressives to do is to decamp for sympathetic countries (i.e. the European Union). For you skeptics, just watch the lack of impact the 'Occupy' movement will have. Then come back and refute me.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 10 years ago

You're both wrong. Our economy has been imploded; the currency is only beginning to reflect the hyperinflation that has been created.

As for voting: 1) most voting machines in the U.S. are now electronic, which can be hacked by any kid with an internet connection and 10$ in parts: http://digg.com/news/technology/e_voting_machines_can_be_hacked_remotely_controlled_to_change_votes 2) a choice between a 'left' and a 'right' candidate is no more than a choice between Coke and Pepsi (yes, I am saying that they are corporate brands). 3) if martial law is declared during the impending culmination of this global financial crisis, there may not be an election in 2012 at all.

Self-described 'Progressives' need to wake up and see that the executive branch, the judicial branch, and almost every member of Congress has sold us up the river. Obama has continued every failed policy of Bush's and piled on top wars with FIVE more countries. The Supreme Court now recognizes corporations as persons with civil rights. Congress keeps raising the debt ceiling on an exponential debt that must be defaulted, or we will be just like Greece.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Those are some fascinating rationalizations for not participating in our democracy. While you're struggling to justify boycotting democracy, conservatives are using the system against you. You're only hurting yourself by rejecting the one course of action that could make a difference.

In Florida, where I live, Tea Partiers who understand how to use the system were instrumental in electing Rick Scott. The result has been a government that is more responsive to their concerns and less responsive to yours. Scott torpedoed a bill banning gerrymandering, which further entrenches conservative power. Not through corruption, but through voting. Scott rejected Obama's high-speed rail money and killed the project. He signed a bill that requires drug testing for welfare recipients. These are all wins for the people who took the time to participate in the democratic process. The way to fight back is through the democracy that we already have, which obviously IS responsive to the people who bother to participate and vote.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 10 years ago

I completely agree with you on the ultimate power of the vote. I am trying to establish a way to have some power between elections. There is nothing more powerful that we can do than vote, but between elections we can create our own lobby. Use the forces that big business and special interests use. Take over there weapon and make it our own. www.lobbydemocracy.com

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

And I do agree with you too, about the importance of participating in the political process in a variety of ways, not just voting. The goal is to make government more responsive to your concerns, and there is no way to do that without participating in e process. The defeatist rationalizations for not bothering to take the time to vote that are all over this page are the main reason that government has been increasingly LESS responsive tome concerns of most of the people on this site.

[-] 1 points by Eugenius (42) 10 years ago


[-] 0 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

This coming election is for the public relations face of the military-fascist banksters now in control of America, for that position I prefer Obama. I realize that this is not a democracy, where we the people get to participate, and that much of the voting is rigged anyway,. (see Bush Jr. election history,. "stop the count" and all that.) If I can stand the hypocrisy of it, and force myself to the poles, I will vote for Obama, as he is clearly the lesser of the two evils being offered by the powers that control sht here.

I will however continue to fight against the whole anti-democratic system, as it does not represent me, my interests, or those of anyone I know or care about. We need revolutionary change, we need to build a real democracy, and a civil society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid of our affinity groups. We need a new money system, one that does not have in-built skimming systems, for the 1% to maintain their wealth without any contributions to society. We need to make these changes ourselves, as the faux-democracy we have now is only a ruse, a distraction, a prison for our discontent.

Vote for the lesser evil, continue to fight all evil. Vote for the lesser evil, continue to fight all evil.

Vote for the lesser evil, continue to fight all evil.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Why do "military-fascist banksters" control America?

Because you can't get elected in Washington without accepting private campaign financing. Changing that one simple thing would cut the money strings and make our politicians answerable to their constituents instead of to their financial backers.

Both major party candidates rejected public campaign financing, which means that they don't work for us, they work for the people who put them into power. (Not voters.) Obama was the first major party candidate in history since the beginning of public campaign financing to reject public financing in favor of private donations.


[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 9 years ago

voting is already pointless, the two parties are corrupt yet people keep voting republican or democrat, and when you vote independant they say we are throwing our vote away. Ive been voting 3rd party since ross perot, so im a true patriot! ha

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The people who elected all of those Tea Party candidates didn't throw their vote away, and they fundamentally changed the Republican establishment. They advanced their agenda in a way that OWS can only dream about.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 9 years ago

interesting point.

[-] 0 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

Voting will never get us out of this mess. We have to show our voice to the powers that be (I dont consider them powerful at all), and NOT vote, to show how we know their system is rigged, and that no matter who becomes president, they got bosses to answer to..NOT US! We need a resource based economy, or intelligent management of the earth's resources, where everyone benefits from a lifestyle unheard of in today's world. Like Buckminster fuller said years ago: Every single person on this planet can live a true Billionaire life, without the fake luxuries, but with security, integrity, intelligence, and the most efficient form of life

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Opting out never has worked nor will it ever work - except to make sure that nothing gets better.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

really? Has voting made anything better? I dont think you really know the state of affairs on this planet right now. I've read lots of scientific peer reviewed journals on the state of ecological decay, energy crises, violent instability, poverty, unemployment, and cancers, and they all have gone up multiple fold over the past 50 years. Has voting changed any of that for the better? Has it EVER? Nope. Rather, a beautiful thing called science has, something that gets ZERO exposure on the television. For example, do you even know why we have an unemployment crisis? Its because machines are taking our jobs away. But shouldnt that be a good thing? Since machines do the job a 100 times better, are basically expendable (while humans dying in construction is a tragedy), and free us from arduous hard labor. But within the market system which requires us to have these things called "jobs", it hurts us, so naturally people have a right to fear machines. But within a resource based economy, automation would be welcomed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

People opting out since the 60's has allowed our government to get away from us. It is gonna take involvement and lots of work to clean-up the mess we have let develop.

[-] 0 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

Really? How about before the 60's? Nothing negative was happening then? How about the Great Depression, did anyone vote on that issue? The two World Wars that cost the US millions of lives, did the American public get to vote on that? How about the slow corporatizing of everything on the planet, did they vote on that as well? You see, the public at large, including OWS are for the most part unaware as to what has allowed humanity to make progress, and they are also completely blind to the root cause of our issues, and thats why politics has been such a plague of our existence. If people are educated to a level where they have awareness of the issues AND the solutions needed to solve the problem, you would see a vast difference in the way society is governed, since the people would demand it, and have it done, rather than place their faith in ONE PERSON, who (Even Ron Paul) has no clue what is actually causing the unemployment crisis or how to deal with global warming

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor - America likely would not have joined in the war at that time - because of public sentiment.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

oh yea I agree, but you gotta understand, its the market system at play. The market system creates wars for new business ventures. Its the only way it has been able to stay afloat, by creating problems and attempting to solve them. And science and technology have been the greatest problems for the system, since automation is now taking over human labor...even though thats a good thing. So the thing thats rescued our market system is the service sector, and wars. If you check out a resource based economy, you would like the methods of process that it proposes

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

And so your idea is to upend the market system and replace it with a resource-based economy -- by doing nothing?

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

and if your question meant what AM I actually doing now? Well obviously the best way to make a system established is to have the general population understand it and support it, then you can begin the implementation of the system, in other words transition from this paradigm to a different one. I talk about this in great length all the time, do lectures, made a website, working on a book, AND I promote sustainable living, such as permaculture, renewable energy, and clean water source, by having my own vegetable garden, getting solar panels with a friend, and my water is pure from a water generator that I created using an idea from an inventor. Its called the droughtmaster. I mean, whats better than preaching? Doing, and im doing whatever I can.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Okay, well, the people here are really familiar with the whole resource-based economy thing after persistent spamming for months from hundreds drones from the Zeitgeist Movement. So no education is necessary here. This is a thread about avoiding futility, so if you have some concrete suggestions for how to bring about a tangible change then that would be welcome. But if you're going to talk about resource-based economies of the future with no idea of how to get from Point A to Point B then you're just spouting science fiction.

(And how could you have a book and a web site and all of this, without being familiar with the term "singularity"??)

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

And how do you suppose I dont know how to get from Point A to Point B? Where is this presupposition coming from? There are many people very qualified for making this a reality, however they do not have a voice in the public and political arena due to censorship, and corporate/government media which is funded by financial powers, that also own the political scene. You fail to realize very simple things. And I can expect an insult from you now. So ill just say Peace

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Our transition to a resource-based convoy is being held back by censorship? Do tell... This is a whole new conspiracy theory to me and I'm a connoisseur.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

...its not a conspiracy theory. What IS a conspiracy theory is a political party blaming another for job loss, etc. When historically the greatest catalyst for long term unemployment has been technology. And the financial investment/ownership class make sure that no idea that is contrary to what they believe true be presented to the populace. That is why there is a constant dumbing down of society to ensure that people dont think outside the box. Just think of it, do you think they would for one second, allow information about WHY we are having unemployment, to be spread on the CNN news daily? No way. They always talk about this policy or that policy. It is the most powerful weapon of public control. To present them with narrow frames of reference, and to keep them in that mindset. And THAT is why everyone is so skeptical of a RBE, because they have sooo many premafacia associations, so they call it communism, technocracy, elitism, whatever they can to get it out their heads.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

"When historically the greatest catalyst for long term unemployment has been technology."

Are you referring to the Luddite Fallacy? The mistaken idea that technological unemployment leads to systemic unemployment? That's a fun conspiracy theory but low score for believability.

So in summary: your strategy for making our government more responsive to our concerns is to not vote, and to fantasize about science fiction. So that's why I tried to cut all if this off way back at the point when I identified you as a singularity futurist.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

What? Your basically judging me several times in that paragraph without any hint of what I said. Automation leads to unemployment, yes. Can new sectors of work be created from the relief of a previous sector? Of course! But its just not enough jobs to cover the amount of people unemployed. Im not with the Luddite Fallacy. And you call me a singularity futurist, when this Idea could have been recognized 100 years ago. How is that futurist? Explain. And science fiction? What the FUK is that? So then everything around you is science fiction. Your phone which was created in a assembly plant. Your car which was mostly manufactured by automation. By the way, do you know of a thing called contour crafting? Which basically allows a machine to draw up and install the infrastructure of a home in one day? Wow such utopian fantasy ideas! Even though it exists, im sure its science fiction, like my phone and car and house. you sound very familiar to those who said back in the day: Mankind can never fly, its a utopian idea. The earth is round? What a fictitious belief! The Earth is not the center of the galaxy? Bah, those weird scientists again!

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

I know singularity, hello...why are you trying to talk down to me? I dont get it. How do you come about fixing things though, isnt it about spreading an idea to the world? What is your tangible change? I havent heard ONE tangible change from anyone who criticizes the movement. This forum has turned into an ego thing, everyone has their own opinionated view on things, thinking that if they "fight" some system that change will come about. When in reality, Buckminster Fuller said: The only way to change an existing reality, is to create a new one that makes the previous one obsolete. If enough people know about a resource based economy, they would let this system collapse, and start a new civilization. You think it some grandeur thing that will never happen, but its where we are naturally inclined to be eventually. So criticize me some more, but never give any solution to things like poverty, war, motorvehicle accidents, etc. Its all about voting and politics with most people.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

If the issue that you care about is political corruption then yeah you're going to spend a lot of time talking about government. And if you want to change government and you live in a democracy then that involves voting, with was the point of the original article on this page. If your plan is to not worry about our government because some day it will be obsolete then that's a little like me not worrying about my tax bill since the sun will some day go nova and make my tax bill irrelevant. Until that happens, I'll still have a problem.

One thing that the resource-based economy people never could explain was who would run everything. Some of them say, "the computers", but somebody has to run the computers and those people would be the most powerful people on Earth. So a resource-based economy would actually be an oligarchy of technocrats. Which doesn't seem like a big improvement over what we have now.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

You have to understand that you got that wrong, because your still thinking within outdated social terms, such as competition, and greed. Greed and competition are not immutable human conditions that spring out of nowehere, they are reinforced by the competitive mentality of the Market System. You can NEVER get rid of corruption in this system, since every business transaction is legitimately corrupt. If you make money off someone, thats corrupt, since you are assuming you got the advantage over him/her. The people governing the technology would NOT own anything, since there would be no reason to, everything is abundant for all, and the old pseudo mentalities of private property, material luxury, and power consolidation would be eliminated. Do you even know what we have now? We are about to run out of fossil fuels in 40 years or less and there is NOWHERE near the level of commitment towards renewable energy. That is disastrous since everything we get is still from fossil fuels. We dont make a big commitment because of profit and because it would eliminate lots of jobs. We are polluting the environment at an accelerating rate for profit, killing the plankton, algae that provide us with air. How is a resource based economy, that automates the production of the most high quality organic food, protects the natural environment by recycling everything and making sure things are made of high quality to not break down, and using the most efficient in renewalble energies to ensure no shortage would occur...A BAD THING? Please explain. You are raelly thinking within close frames of thinking.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Okay, yes, that's what I expected you to say. That a post-scarcity economy will magically change human nature so that nobody will be power hungry, and nobody will have any problem with surrendering all control to the computers, because the computers keep the people happily supplied with everything that they need. (The people are not "enslaved" by the machines, unless you want to look at it that way.)

Sorry if I'm skeptical that eliminating the need for money would fundamentally change human nature. Have you ever gone to an all-inclusive resort where money is useless for a week? It's a liberating experience but it doesn't fundamentally change human nature, it just makes things simpler.

But anyway unless you're going to explain how we're going to reach this kind of techno-communist utopia in the next few years, this is all just science fiction. A fun distraction.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

I see...you want something to change in the next few years so that you can get some kind of instant gratification. Im still trying to understand your motives for wasting my time so much. Again, I never said Utopia, yet you say Utopia. There is no utopia, and by calling this a utopian dream it shows how uneducated you are on the topic. Because your contradicting yourself. First you say you can understand how machines and computers can create a better world, yet your calling it also a utopian dream that cannot become reality. And your claim about human nature is not only false, but very confusing. You didnt even say what Human nature is, your just saying that by geting off money we are not changing human nature. You are a very misleading person and I dont even comprehend yet why your even here, and what it is that your proposing. Its stuff like this that gives OWS a bad rep. And im not a member of OWS by the way, but since they seem to be complaining about something I decided to input what I know to be true. You act as if money has been around and is always gonna be around when 90% of human history was without money, and people didnt have the distorted neurotic dispositions they have today. We're trying ot return to those values of community and cooperation, ALONG with utilization of science and technology. Sounds pretty simple, but creative people like you seem to be imagining utopias and communist technocracies.

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

doing nothing? What is doing nothing...isnt doing nothing trying to fix your problems by using the same mentality that got you in the trouble in the first place? Everyone is stuck in this frame of mind that assumes the Market system to be empirical to our understandings, when in fact, it is SOOO not empirical. Its BEEN outdated for a hundred years now and theres NOTHING wrong with replacing human physical labor with automation, so that people can use the only thing that has allowed us to survive from the African Savanna to now, the human mind. The market system, while not only killing millions per year due to starvation, war, disease, and crime also is the prime cause of all these atrocities. And wastes the human mind, by forcing people into employment at utterly pointless, useless, and mindless "jobs". Think of all the people, mindlessly wasting their lives away on jobs like Marketing, Law, Military, Financing, Accounting, etc. who can instead be taught to understand how to relate to nature. The effects of that would be amazing. The competitive market mentality is a social dogma that has been around for a long time now and its hard to get rid of

[-] 0 points by thesungiveslife (41) 9 years ago

the bottom line is, the voting system is actually setup to indoctrinate us further into closed frames of reference which then block out any alternative viewpoints. Do you notice how these "candidates" usually come out of nowhere? Do we ever get to choose who we want to run for election? NO! They come outta nowhere, and with zero credentials on how to fix problems in our world. We need professionals in the fields of psychology, ecology, engineering in office, not lawyers and businessmen who only know how to pass policy, but dont know a damn thing about, say...how to increase the crop yield from agricultural products

[-] 0 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

It's funny, I see the opposite; voting is throwing all the efforts of OWS out the window.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Well yes, it is now, since there are no Occupy candidates to vote for. Voting at this point means voting for the establishment. Occupy had a window to create a new option to vote for but they missed the window and now they're stuck campaigning for Obama instead of themselves.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

OWS is based on anarchy and the idea that the system is broken. OWS creating a political party for a system which it believes is broken would be antithetical. One of the core tenets of OWS is that we do not need representatives because we should be using direct democracy as an alternative. An alternative that is aimed at empowering the people themselves instead of representatives who become corrupted and part of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

On the topic of direct democracy, if the General Assembly was supposed to be an experiment to demonstrate an alternative system of governance based on consensus and direct democracy -- then didn't that experiment fail? Didn't Occupy inadvertently end up demonstrating that it's not feasible? The General Assembly devolved into infighting before evaporating due to lack of attendance, and the money is all gone. If that was a demonstration of anything then wasn't it a demonstration that it doesn't work?

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

I can understand how it could be understood this way. However, I haven't seen OWS admit to this, and I certainly have not seen OWS claim interest in playing inside the political theater. What I have seen and still see is quite the opposite. Recently, I have seen talk about reforming the way in which OWS practices direct democracy.

Perhaps I'm wrong and you have heard or read official statements from OWS which imply that it is getting ready to play the political game? As it shed it's anarchistic roots?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

My suggestion would be that you stop thinking in terms of "official" announcements from the true authority about the official beliefs that Occupiers are supposed to adopt, because the whole point of the structure of Occupy (if it has any point, or structure) is a rejection of that top-down, hierarchal paradigm.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

You seem to think only hierarchical structures can provide authority on a subject; that only such systems can generate outcomes or decisions that will be deemed official by a group. I don't see why this is the case. A general assembly is an horizontal way to come to such official statements and decisions. If everyone agrees with a statement or decision (no one blocks), then the statement or decision is official in that everyone agrees.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Sure, but the GA rarely accomplished consensus and disintegrated due to infighting. So who can speak "officially" for Occupy now? The only spokespeople left now that all of the people have left are the ringleaders who post event flyers online. If that core group of elites now speaks "officially" for an anarchist group then the whole thing has devolved into a gigantic oxymoron. A leaderless group with leaders.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Is this true? Occupy has only a few anarchists left who spend their days posting stuff online? There aren't anybody going to the activities anymore?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I'm sure that plenty of people would like to dispute what I said, but how many people were out marching yesterday? Compared to how many people were participating in activities across the country a year ago?

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

I don't know. I wasn't there so I counted count.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Where do you come up with that statement? Provide a link that.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

He's still in the process of discovering that Occupy has no "core tenets".

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Sure it does - you just have to make yourself aware of the tenets.

About & News

[-] 2 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

The about section clearly states this site is not an official OWS site. It's best to stick with what is said officially from the NYCGA.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

OK then provide a link to the documentation there. You don't get to make a claim like you did with nothing to back it up.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago


This official document makes it clear Occupy is about participatory democracy (one kind of direct democracy, the other being deliberative democracy), and clearly states that Occupy does not support playing inside the political theater.

Of course, if you browse the NYCGA site which is the official site for Occupy, you'll notice that all the comments are very old. It seems like it's dead. Unfortunate.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Direct Democracy a primer. This video explains in a general sort of way direct democracy - it does not get into the structure or process of a national direct participatory democracy or in extension a world wide direct democracy - it introduces the basics.

This goes on to explain an outside perspective of Occupy and Direct Democracy:

Occupy Wall Street: Leaderless, consensus-based ... economist.com

Occupy on direct democracy GA ( again speaks to group meetings held by occupy - not a national assembly organizational structure )

Consensus (Direct Democracy @ Occupy Wall Street)

direct-participatory-democracy-links - democracybythepeople direct democracy -participatory democracy. worldwide links resource page. participatory democracy - direct democracy by country

participatory democracy Facts, information, pictures ... participatory democracy The twentieth-century reincarnation of the ancient Greek ideal of government by the people (demos). Participatory democracy is direct ... Excellent www.encyclopedia.com

Now you have many resources to compare the meaning of Direct Democracy. Can you layout the effective operation on a national scale?

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

My friend, I am doing my doctorate degree in political science. I know what direct democracy is! And, I didn't learn what it was from cheap youtube.com videos. I studied serious books for years. Who do you think you are? Do you treat everyone here like children and assume they don't know anything? I didn't come to this site to get a list of things I should read. You are the one who gave two very bad definitions of direct democracy, perhaps you should study a little. No?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Save it trashy - you lost your credibility about two seconds after your new sockpuppet arrived on the forum and then you edited your comments that I had already replied to.

[-] 0 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Again with this trashy business? Who are you? I didn't edit any comments of mine.

We were discussing direct democracy and I was explaining how it was the opposite of representative democracy. You disagreed, but you didn't explain why. You provided two definitions of direct democracy, but they were both lacking terribly, and the second was contradicting itself.

I'd like to finish our discussion if you can and want to remain on topic. Is that possible?

How is democracy "direct" if it uses representatives? Doesn't "direct" democracy mean just that, a democracy that is directly by the people and for the people, not indirectly by means of representatives? And, if a democracy is truly direct by the people, then how do political parties play into this? Wouldn't it mean that people gather to vote themselves, without representatives, and so there is no longer the need for representatives or political parties? What is your understand of direct democracy? Can you state this in your own words, instead of publishing definitions which are different and contradict their own selves?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

A little background: "Trashy" is this site's version of Trotsky The Saboteur. This guy who called himself "Thrasymaque" used to criticize OWS before he got banned. He did all kinds of questionable things, like writing bots to mess with the point scores and all kinds of other stuff. He traumatized the locals so much that they suspect anybody who even hints at criticism of OWS as being one of his sock puppets. He succeeded at his goal, which was making people paranoid, for kicks. A bunch of people are convinced that he's a professional government psy-ops agent, which he thinks is really really funny. Nobody can spell Thrasymaque so they call him "Trashy". I'll probably be accused of being him for posting this. You have no idea what kind of dysfunction and paranoia occurs on this site on a daily basis. It's seriously entertaining.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 9 years ago

The paranoia here has always entertained me as well.

I wonder how much is drug induced vs. actual psychological illness.

I miss smoking pot :(

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

What you just said is self-contradictory, because you're citing an authoritative source at the top of a hierarchy as the representative of a group with no hierarchy or authority.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

The NYCGA represents OWS in the sense that what is written there comes from decisions made in general assemblies where occupiers came together and decided upon things together. I find this more official than this site where there is no system of direct democracy. I did not mean that the NYCGA represents every occupier in the nation, of course not, but I find it more official than this website. I'm sure the owners of this website wrote it was unofficial for a reason.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I went through the same process a year ago, thinking that there was such a thing as an "official" statement from Occupy. But I eventually accepted that it's a little like when you see an "official" announcement from the Anonymous collective. Anybody can write a press release, and there are lots of official-looking announcements in the "News" section of this site. But anarchy has no "official" anything. Occupy is fundamentally a tug of war between anarchists and big-government liberals, and the group as a whole is not capable of official statements about anything. If you want to see official statements from the ringleaders then just read Adbusters.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

That makes sense. I do sometimes read AdBusters when I am flying between cities for business trips.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

(If you regularly fly between cities for business trips then Occupy probably isn't for you.)

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Business owners can't be part of Occupy? I sell underwear. Since occupiers are not nudists, I figure they buy underwear from time to time. Do you use underwear, or do you prefer going commando?

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Announcing that you're a business owner is not a good way to make friends around here, no.

I create software. Since so many Occupiers run around with Apple gizmos, I figure they buy software from time to time. They do use software, they don't prefer using abacuses. But that doesn't matter. Simply mentioning being a business owner or an employer incited many flame wars here over the last year, because people who own businesses and hire people are the enemy. (To at least a large percentage of Occupiers.) Even when I was trying to offer a job and training, that still made me the enemy.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

That's crazy! There's way more than 1% of Americans who own businesses!

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

It comes from attending various OWS events and activities. Have you been to a general assembly? They promote direct democracy which is antithetical to representative democracy, the system we currently use. The main idea of all versions of direct democracy is to do without representatives.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

No sorry - you don't get to claim something as a fact - something that is not a verifiable position as stated in any official documentation of OWS.

One of the core tenets of OWS is that we do not need representatives because we should be using direct democracy as an alternative.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Is direct democracy not being pushed as an alternative by OWS? Are they not trying to empower the people by asking them to make their own decisions communally through direct democracy? From what I've seen at all the protests and events, it seems clear direct democracy is one of the core tenets of OWS.

I have never been to an OWS event which pushed for certain candidates to be elected or otherwise talked about strategies to play inside the current governmental system; In all the events I have attended the participants were quick to remark that the system was absolutely broken in their eyes.

Direct democracy is the opposite of representative democracy. The two cannot co-exist. They are antithetical.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Live and learn :

What Is Direct Democracy?

Direct Democracy Now :

Unlike the current “Representative Democracy” where elected representatives make decisions regardless of the wishes of their constituencies, in Direct Democracy individuals vote on critical issues and their decisions are carried out by their elected representatives… Whether they like it or not.

Direct Democracy


You may be wondering exactly what Direct Democracy is and how it works. Direct Democracy is a form of government that is said to be by the people, but also for the people. It is a type of government that the people will make the decisions for themselves rather than to have the decisions made by representatives. Another term used to describe Direct Democracy is pure democracy or “true” democracy.

Some like to argue that democracy is empowering in a sense that it enables one to exercise control over their own life and act together with others to change the direction it is going in. Democracy also requires one to be accountable. The politician that is elected must be accountable for their decisions. It also requires them to have effective representation.

There are many advantages and disadvantages to Direct Democracy:


Raises issues that others may want to hide
Restores authority to the people, and makes them responsible, not the parties.
Curbs the imbalance of power, makes politicians responsible to the people
Gets the community involved
Makes for better legislation
Politicians are forced to act on petitions instead of throwing them out right away.
Helps to gain control over Parliament and the direction of the country.
Restores parliamentary government with representatives
Makes politicians be accountable


The media and government may attempt to influence the decisions made by the people.
Increase in referenda
Some people may be more politically active than others

Direct democracy gives the steering wheel for government to the people. As you noticed above there are both many advantages and disadvantages to direct democracy. This form of government is already in effect in Switzerland and some states in the United States.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

The first definition you posted is flawed, the second one is better.

In the first definition, this sentence's logic is shaky - "in Direct Democracy individuals vote on critical issues and their decisions are carried out by their elected representatives". Here, it states that people vote, and their representatives carry out the decisions they have voted on. The problem is the bad use of the word representative because if these representatives do an activity which is different than those they are supposed to represent, then they are not doing the act of representing. In fact, what we have here are not representatives. The people represent themselves and make their own decisions in direct democracy. The so-called "representatives" in this definition carry out these decisions like operators. They do not represent the people in any way.

The second definition is much better and correctly identifies the oppositional nature of direct democracy vs representative democracy in the following sentence - "It is a type of government that the people will make the decisions for themselves rather than to have the decisions made by representatives." The key words here are "rather than", which can be understood as "as opposed to". Indeed, direct democracy is in opposition to representative democracy; they are antithetical.

This form of government is already in effect in Switzerland and some states in the United States.

I do not believe this is true. Can you back up your extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence? Direct democracy is not only opposed to representative democracy which is used throughout US, it is also diametrically opposed to the constitution of the United-States of America.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

From the 2nd definition : The politician that is elected must be accountable for their decisions.

To continue ; We the people need to claim our government and improve upon it ( Direct Democracy ).

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Yes, the second definition is indeed flawed, and it contradicts itself in the first and second paragraphs. In the first paragraph it says direct democracy is when people make decisions for themselves "rather than" have decisions made by representatives, but then it says politicians (representatives) must be accountable for their decisions in the second paragraph. Complete contradiction. It's a very unclear and flawed definition.

You have bad definitions of direct democracy. I suggest you read the Wikipedia on direct democracy, it's pretty good. The only direct democracy we have in our current system is when we hold referendums.

I would like it if you could provide your example for "This form of government (direct democracy) is already in effect in Switzerland and some states in the United States." I'm interested in hearing about your example as I have never encountered it before.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Grow up trashymask and provide the documentation for your assertions about OWS core tenets.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

What is a trashymask? Some kind of insult?

You do not think your second definition contradicts itself?

You don't have examples for your claim that direct democracy is being used in Switzerland and in some states of America?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

You went back and edited your comments? How trashy of you.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (53) 43 minutes ago

Dude, I don't know what happened. We were having an interesting discussion and you suddenly started talking about something else. Are you sure you are replying to the correct person? I think you got mixed up with some other comments. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

I edited my comments? No. Where? Which one? How "trashy" of you? Is this some kind of new cool teenage word?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

U can stop playing your game now trashy or Odin.

[-] 1 points by MatthewRKains (57) 9 years ago

Dude, I don't know what happened. We were having an interesting discussion and you suddenly started talking about something else. Are you sure you are replying to the correct person? I think you got mixed up with some other comments.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

What did you accomplish in your 1st year of life? OWS and all of the Occupy groups are evolving.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

A year after the beginning of the national Tea Party protests, the movement elected Scott Brown, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnel, Marco Rubio, and many more, after agreeing on the Contract From America.

A year after the start of Occupy, there is still no consensus about what the whole point is. But thousands of people have been arrested, so -- success?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

The T oilet P aper is a political movement and was founded as such. OWS was not founded as a political movement.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

Yes, and that a key part of why Occupy will merely be a footnote in history, whereas the Tea Party has achieved concrete changes that have made our government more responsive to their concerns.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

You mean to the Koch's concerns?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

The Tea Party is obsessed with fiscal responsibility, and they won trillions of dollars in budget cuts last year during the debt ceiling debate. At the dismay of the Republican establishment, since a lot of the cuts are to the defense budget. What has Occupy accomplished?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

Education of more and more of the public and inspiring the formation of groups that are taking action to address the ills of our society.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

I meant something concrete. But okay. We'll go with "inspiration" and "education".

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Is that why they raised my taxes and gave yet another break to corporations??

Also why do they back teaching creationism?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

There is no point engaging you in the debate over the wisdom of fielding candidates, because you're perfectly happy with the candidates provided for you by the Democratic Party establishment. I already know that. Everybody who reads your posts already knows that.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Well then, you should quit referencing the lying sacks of shit that the teabagge(R)s are.

Would you care to provide proof of the rest of your statement?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

You just proved it, I don't have to. You're the poster child for the Occupier who doesn't have the discipline to look beyond the left/right dichotomy in order to address real problems. I already know all of that, so there is no point in you telling me that "Repelican'ts" are the problem.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

You're the one who failed in providing proof, instead relying on "thin" insults.

You're just avoiding the facts.

Tell me why did they raise my taxes to fund another corporate tax break?

( And yes, that was the reason given.)

Why do they support teaching creationism?

You lack the discipline to even notice what's happening all around you.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 9 years ago

"They", of course referring to Republicans. Your version of Satan.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but this article was about Occupy becoming a political force and fielding candidates who could make our government more responsive to OWS concerns. Obviously, you don't think that there is any need for Occupy to field candidates because you're a die-hard supporter of the candidates that the Democratic Party has already provided for you. There is no point in getting into a conversation with you about how "they" are the problem because that's not what this thread is about. The left/right lens that you view the world through makes it impossible for you to even begin to have a conversation about Occupy fielding its own candidates instead of voting for Democrats.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Another "thin" insult?

Another post where you ignored the questions?

No junkie. You shouldn't have come back to redistribute the same old shit, using the same old methods of running out a thread to avoid answering simple questions..

C'mon defend your teabagge(R)s

You brought them up.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 10 years ago

I agree 100%, please inform Redjazzypants!

Get Out the Vote this November!

If YOU don't Vote, YOU don't Count!!!

2010 Never EVER Again!!


[-] 0 points by psconway (106) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

You're assuming that the only people involved in this growing movement are the kids in the park, and that none of us in the 99% ever voted before. Speaking personally, I've never missed an election in the last 20 years. And in each of those years, I was frustrated and angry at the paucity of real choice being offered to me on the ballot. Both of the major parties have sold out to the 1%, and the tea party people can feel it too.

I'll continue to vote, and "throw my vote away" on 3rd party candidates or with an abstention because I "don't know how to play the game." In reality, I and many of us no longer desire to permit the selection of our government to be done via a rigged game. Getting it right means the difference between life and death for some, decent livings or abject poverty for others, peace and war. This is not a game, my friends, not at all.

Take a look at the 99% declaration working group: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/please-join-this-working-group-and-let-your-voice-be-heard

Also, check out the poll for bite-size ideas to be added to a Money-Out-Of-Politics Constitutional Amendment: http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-what-do-you-want-in-a-money-out-of-politics-a/

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 10 years ago

I am so tired of this ignorant and lazy, yet smug point of view. Wake up! Get Over Yourselves!!!

Democracy isn't a spectator sport. If ya turn away, the scumbags take over. To a large part that's what happened, not totally (you have to pay attention to know this) some good players still bother to fight the good fight, but they need support!!

You get what you put in. Put in shit, that's what you get.

2006 and '08 were the beginning not the victory. 2010 was a stupid betrayal! If I were Obama, I'd have said: "Fine, then you find another fool. I'm not negotiating with RepubliCon-Teabag Terrorists, have fun!! Bye." But he hung in anyway, because he cares about the country even if his fickle god damn supporters don't.

[-] 0 points by alwayzabull (228) 10 years ago

Obama in 2012! Hahaha.

[-] 0 points by CarryTheGripsUpToTheAttic (133) 10 years ago


They will LOVE to have us try to work within the CURRENT system. In D.C., they know the strategy, 100 levels deep! They will have us boxing shadows until we are exhausted.

NEW Continental Congress and NEW Capitol. Keep 90% of what the founders proposed to escape tyranny (British tyranny) - but get the money out of politics!

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

So instead of actually doing something realistic that could result in a government that's more responsive to your concerns, you'd rather fantasize about getting everything that you want? One of the functions of our democratic process is to create compromises, since all Americans don't agree on everything.

You're rejecting the idea of getting a little of what you want, and you're saying that you'll only be happy if you completely upend the entire system. How do you plan to do that, exactly, if not through the democratic process? By force, through violence?

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 10 years ago

George Carlin speaks the truth, voting Is another way to keep you in a closed distracted bubble...


[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 10 years ago

I have never voted and am not even registered to vote. Why should i vote for a broken politician in a broken system ? What good will it do ? Hell even if i did vote it probably wouldn't even be counted... Electoral Collage FTW !

[-] 0 points by Eugenius (42) 10 years ago

I agree because there is a difference!

One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference. A stark difference!

One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference.

One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference.

One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to feed the poor, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference.

One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality.

In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy.

So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re Un-American. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one.

[-] 2 points by Rmarks1701 (103) 10 years ago

I have to ask, which party is which? cause from where I am sitting both parties ARE the same. Both rely on gathering support from corporations and unions, both take money from the poor and give to the rich (despite what is said), and both parties have ever since social security was enacted stolen money from it and replaced it with IOU's which are not worth the paper they are printed on.

the truth is, despite the rhetoric being spouted by the different parties, there is no difference in government between them.

[-] 0 points by Eugenius (42) 10 years ago

Sorry, I don't believe that you're that stupid. You know perfectly well which party is which!

But, I guess you don't just eat the garbage Fox News puts out, you try to pass it on as truth. I guess you're not Voting in the next Election then? That's real helpful.

Or are you going to throw away your vote on Ralph Nader??? Or are you voting for Michelle "Snow White" Bachmann or will it be one of the Seven Dwarves like Rick "Dopey" Perry???

Which is it? Pick one! That's all I'm asking.

[-] 1 points by MalcolmX (16) from Manassas, VA 10 years ago

A vote for a third party is not a throwaway.

We should all be threatening to vote for a third party to weaken Obama, because Obama has -broken- his promises. He is practically a Republican in disguise.

Bailout- Weakened by Tax Cuts for the Rich Financial Reform- Not Executed Wars- Continue to prosecute them at the behest of the Military Industrial Complex and Big Oil. Drug Policy- Continue to put away Americans for the Prison Industrial Complex. Patriot Act/Secret Arrests- Supported by Obama.

Obama has acted no different from the right-wing. Threaten the Democratic Party by voting for a Left Wing third party and he will have to answer for his lies for political survival.

[-] 1 points by Eugenius (42) 10 years ago

I don't know of any promises the President has made that he's gone back on. Dispite what the Republicans might say, he is not a Dictator, and he has to work with the Congress to get anything done, or have you forgotten how the Republicans Filibusted every thing he proposed. He did what he could do. And what he got done, by any truly independent measure is quite remarkable.

Voting for a Third Party undoubtedly means that a Republican Like Rick Perry will be the next President. So. if you hope for things to change, in the vernacular of the peasantry, "It aint gonna happen!" if a Republican wins. So, your vote is wasted on a third party because it insures the status quo when you're looking for a fundamental change.

You have to deal with reality, not right wing propaganda. So, Like I said before, "America has a two Party system." One Party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you're UnAmerican. Which side are you on???

[-] 2 points by FuManchu (619) 10 years ago

Obama's broken promises


Also, he got way more money from corporations during 2008 compared to McCain.

[-] 1 points by Dani53 (5) 10 years ago

Obama's kept promises: I'm gay and I don't have to worry about being kicked out of the military for telling my truth. I'm also diabetic and I don't have to worry if I decide to leave the service next year that I might not get my own health insurance because I have a pre-existing condition. Just because these issues don't mean anything to you, don't discount my truth. Lucky you Tea Party troll that your bought and paid for politicians do your bidding for you. Remember, the president has no vote in congress. He can't arbitrarily pass laws on his own. Those who sit there thinking it's more important to make him look bad by doing nothing than doing the jobs we sent them there for are your real culprits. But I suspect you know that since you paid for them. Anyone thinking of not voting, then sit the hell down and shut up. Don't complain if you don't participate. Expect every elected official to know what you want by mind reading. Nothing in this world is free. March all you want but back it up with a vote, any way you want. March and don't vote and look like the ignorant, lazy hippies that pose no threat to any one of them that they say you are.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 10 years ago

Did I say he was worse than a TP candidate? This kind of arguing by blaming others is what they exploit!

I support gay rights and healthcare too. Repealing DADT was a good thing which by the way was supported by a few republicans too. I was trying to point out he's not the progressive as you all think he is.

[-] 1 points by Rmarks1701 (103) 10 years ago

You did not read my post totally as I am not allowed to vote. However despite being a deep conservative, and a republican supporter, who would I vote for?

if I was allowed, and I had to vote or pay a hefty fine, I would probably vote Obama simply because it is better the devil you know than the devil you do not know.

Though if I could vote, and had a choice, and they existed in this country, I would vote the raving mad loony party as a protest vote.

[-] 1 points by Eugenius (42) 10 years ago

If you aint got no vote, you aint got no voice in this debate.