Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Vote Smart, or not at all."

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 3, 2012, 9:17 a.m. EST by KofAIII (234)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This was my message to OWS, that 'never got through'...(http://betterliberalarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/call-to-action.html)

We HAVE a democratic republic, right at our fingertips. We don't need a revolution, or direct democracy (we already have that too, they are called ballot initiatives). What we NEED is for voters to research (www.votesmart.org) before they vote, or to STAY OUT OF THE WAY. Under-informed votes are what are causing our corruption problems.

Congress has an approval rating in the teens, but gets re-elected most of the time. Clearly voters are doing a poor job enacting their will...

This is a democratic republic, we get the government we deserve, and right now, our actions suggest we deserve corruption.

189 Comments

189 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Vote smart, or not at all...................

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…………ask Newt about Citizens United

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Weird...

I'll vote for whomever I please.

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

I agree - but dont vote because you are angry - look at ALL issues and determine which electable candidate will do the most to help America

"Citizens United is one of the worst Supreme Court Decisions in history......disgraceful!" -
John McCain TODAY

The four names are SC justices who gave us citizens united - all appointed by the Rs

think - then vote

[-] 3 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

RESEARCH, then vote...

www.votesmart.org

[-] 4 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

Awesome post, this "revolution" talk is an excuse for inaction, nothing more.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

I agree, but then again, even when someone does something, little is accomplished unless you buy a politician. I remember when I sent a warning to president bush about invading iraq, I sent him the preamble to war according to the Lord of this earth, which would include the lords persmission for one, and its no cooincidence that not only was I ignored, but our entire nation's is in jeopardy. The money says trust in God, but when you actually try to do it, its all taboo. The mentality here is kind of like my single friends, who are lonely for a woman, cause they cant find themselves a "beyatch" at the clubs, to settle down with and get married, and would never consider marrying a church going girl with good values, duh!

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Thanks for noticing...

However, from everything I've gathered, the core of OWS wants revolution, and NOT to work within the current system.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I think that about half of us want to work within the system..

If you look at the math regarding primary voting, it's almost pathetic how easily we could hijack the entire Democratic Party.

If just 1/5th of Occupiers swore to vote in every primary, and followed through, we would become the most powerful voting bloc in the entire world.(That's right. The world)

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

In my District, Congressman Thornberry is facing stiff opposition from the Tea Party, and the Democrats can't even field a candidate.

Several county chairs have even asked me if I would run. If I had an RV and gas money, I'd do it in a second.

With the conservatives fighting between each other, well placed liberals could slip in.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Texas 13th??

I hate to sound like a dick, but that would be a complete waste of your time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

Scroll down to Texas 13th and you'll notice that its PVI is 29. That means it's the most Republican district in the entire country, tied with Alabama 6th..

While your at it, you may as well run for Ayatollah of Iran.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

EXACTLY... Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb. Losing sucks.

They still don't even know what the district will look like.

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

Under select plan, check out the 'base plan'.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

If that is Max Thornberry of Texas I would encourage you to go to my web page 'The Congress That Crashed America' for information about how he voted, in 1999, to repeal Glass-Steagall. http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html

We need to confront all of the current members of Congress who crashed this nation's economy by their vote to repeal Glas-Steagall.

Write to your newspapers and their reporters informing them of his vote.

Create a petition and get friends to sign it denouncing him for repealing Glass-Steagall.

If you have personal home page space with your internet service use it to create a web page exposing Thornberry, publicizing the petition and denouncing him for repealing Glass-Steagall.

Write to the Democrats and demand that they field a competitor to Thornberry and tell them why.

If they don't hear it from us they won't hear it.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

It's "Mac Thornberry", and his opponent is named "Keith Dyer", but from what I have gathered, he isn't eligible to run...after voting in the GOP primary.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Take up the fight. Expose him at every opportunity.

He helped to cause the financial collapse of America. He does not belong in our government.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I simply don't have the means. I make $700 a month and live paycheck to paycheck. I can't even afford the $750 filing fee, much less a meaningful run.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

We each do to the best of our abilities and resources.

Keep your eyes open for opportunities to have an impact without investing in it.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Money = Power...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

That attitude concedes the fight without even trying.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You can't fight without tape & gloves...it's murder on the hands.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Defeatism.

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I live to fight another day...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Do you have any web dev skills? Get a website up, and then look for supporters. Heck, you don't even need web dev skills. Wordpress & Facebook does the code for you. You just have to decide what you want the pages to say.

Maybe see about getting some support at the local town hall events, city council, somewhere where you will find citizens already engaging with the government (but not the courthouse, LOL)

Business cards are cheap. Flyers less so, but they would help. I think if you are creative and really think about how you can do this, that you can do it! I'm sure there are plenty of people that are tired of only having one choice in that district that would want to help you out. You just need to find those people.

Good luck!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

:) Thanks.

Right now, I am speaking with County Chairs about collecting the 500 signatures or the $750 I need before February 1st.

Believe it or not, there's not a lot of liberal activists givers around here.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I'm sure there aren't, because they are discouraged by the index ranking. I see that ranking in a different light, especially now with such a low approval rating of Congress. I see an opportunity to take the toughest district out. It would take a lot of grassroots work, and there would need to be massive get-out-the-vote efforts, but if you could pull this off it would be a huge blow to the GOP! Imagine if the people saw that, yes, they DO have a choice, and they can win no matter what some index says.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You're funny...

:)

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

The core of 5 maybe 10 people? A far cry from 99%

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Oh, I think you are wrong about the 5-10 people...

Anarchists revolutionists/direct democracy/GA's on ever corner seekers- are a BIG part of OWS.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5866) 2 years ago

If under informed votes are the cause of corruption problems, the implication is that there are informed votes that won't result in corruption problems. What is the criteria applied to information to determine what does or does not result in corruption problems?

Can a direct correlation be shown between the voters who re-elect Congress most of the time and the individuals who contributed to an approval rating in the teens?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well, unchecked power leads to corruption...

I DON'T think a correlation exists between pre-election polls, and actual votes.

In fact, I'd argue that there is a complete disconnect between results achieved by a specific politician, his support, and those who vote for he/she on election day.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Purge Congress in 2012 --- Plan Now! (Action Plan Proposal)

http://occupywallst.org/forum/purge-congress-in-2012-plan-now-action-plan-propos/

A bi-partisan program to focus OWS attention on the actual criminals in Congress who empowered Wall Street to steal the accumulated home equity of millions of honest American tax payers.

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

+10, good stuff.

Thank you for your input.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Thanks.

I firmly believe that OWS has the power to be a real and positive influence on the elections this year. It is simply a matter of seizing the moment.

Someone on the forums last week pointed me to Rocky Anderson, who has created a new party, the Justice Party, to run a social justice campaign for president this year. The guy has a lot of issue credibility. At least for me.

But I am also strongly encouraging folks to think outside the box in terms of electoral process. Beyond parties. Using the primary Write-In option to make political statements. The elections are our one place where political free speech truly counts. We can't allow the Democrats and Republicans to steal our political free speech voice from us by forcing us to vote for lesser of two evil candidates or by staying home disaffected.

The best way to screw both the Republicans and Democrats is to vote. It is the last thing that they want disaffected and disillusioned Americans to do.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You know, it's really hard to argue with this logic. How are you going to incite a revolution when people can't get motivated to learn their own Congressperson's voting record, and why should you even bother? We HAVE a democracy, we've just LET it go to hell, and in the end, who is there to blame but US? The more you think about it the harder it is to escape this conclusion.

There is a saying that those of us active in trying to stir people politically in the seventies, the eighties, the ninties and the GWB era are well aware of, and that is - "Against ignrance, even the gods struggle in vein."

What we are trying to create is what we already have!

That is fine, whatever, that's the past. Now we've woken up - now we can change it if we are committed!

There, I said it. Tell the truth and run.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well...we can HOPE for change...

But we should 'work' to fully inform voters, rather than try to start a revolution for something we already have.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

The question is whether we still really have what we already have. An active non-violent resistance would help to spur the political process and keep it honest, but dispersed effort in that area would seem to be of limited effectiveness.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

We have an 'opportunity' to create responsible, effective, government, but we aren't employing it to its maximum effect...

We COULD, but we aren't.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I agree with your point here entirely. Unfortunately, we must now also deal with the fallout of our failure to do so in the past, and with the complexities of restoring sound government.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If we could simply get MOST people who vote to do so in a fully informed manner, we wouldn't have problems.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Agreed.

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

Most of what is discussed and debated in Congress and other representative bodies is not especially relevant to the day to day lives of ordinary Americans and that is the issue and what makes direct democracy so compelling. Initiatives and referenda are really only another form of representative democracy in the sense that they call for spending a couple of minutes and then going home and not being regularly, actively engaged in the decisions that affect our common lives.

What do people worry about? People worry about things that they have no control over or think they have no control over and that is the point. Real direct democracy is about giving people power over exactly those things that they are concerned about on a day to day basis, whether it is being able to make the rent or mortgage or put food on the table or pay medical or educational expenses or keep up with arbitrary rules and supervision in the work place. There are, of course, other issues that typically affect our common lives, but those above are things that come to mind immediately.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

In my home county, the local community college is in need of both repair and upgrade. Last year we turned away some 200 qualified students from our nursing program...

The issue before the public was whether or not to issue a bond, to cover the renovations. A previous larger bond had failed, and was now up before the voters again, in a smaller 'more reasonable' form. Out of the 23,000 'registered' voters, guess how many showed up?

Less than 4,000.

There are GA's every week, right? Is attendance growing?

The point is people don't give a rat's ass, man... They don't care enough to show up.

It would do absolutely NO GOOD, to change the system, around the inactive-do-nothing citizenry we have today.

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

The fact is most GAs today are not as relevant to people's daily lives as they could be ideally. The problem with most existing GAs is that they are far too small bodies covering way too large an area. To be really relevant to people's daily lives GAs probably need to cover no more than a ward, precinct or neighborhood level and given the fact that most of us spend half of our waking lives at work, clearly there needs to be a GA in every work place and in larger enterprises, probably a GA in every department. At that level the GAs will be more relevant to everyone's daily life. As they currently exist GAs are only a model of what they could become, what they need to become for direct democracy to really work.

In places were there are active occupations there are usually GAs every night, in some instances two or three GAs a day.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

"...relevant to everyone's daily lives..."...?

In my county, those 200 students would represent about 2 million dollars in local spending. Our community college is literally the stepping stone into a bigger broader academic world.

What could be more directly connected to your daily lives than education and general tax revenue???

This ballot initiative highlights the shortcomings behind "direct democracy". No one wants to vote in favor of tax INCREASES.

You have to change PEOPLE, not the systems around them.

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

Since I am not involved in your particular situation I have no way of knowing what is relevant to the daily lives of the students in your local community college, though clearly it is either not what you personally are interested in or what consumes your personal thoughts on a daily basis, or else, so far, those students feel collectively powerless over the decisions that affect their daily lives and are undoubtedly cynical that they can ever have much power over those decisions. That is the job of OWS--to give people hope and a belief in the idea that they can have power over the decisions that actually matter to them.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You are telling people to ignore or abandon representative democracy,in favor of something else, when there is exactly zero evidence that it will change or alter anything.

The job of OWS should be to tell or convince people to "Vote SMART, or NOT at all."

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

By your own admission and by all the statistical evidence a majority of the people have already abandoned representative democracy. Most people who are qualified to do so don't bother to vote after all. The question is why. I think it is because they don't think that what they vote for matters to them in terms of the concerns of their daily lives. To some degree they are correct in this assessment and to some degree perhaps not. What I am suggesting is that genuine direct democracy will create a context in which people who already feel alienated from the existing representative process can empower themselves.

The job of OWS is to do whatever OWS collectively, as a movement wants its job to be. My own evaluation of what that is, is based on past evidence. OWS is based on nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience. That's how it started and that remains its daily practice. To suggest that it should do otherwise and especially to suggest that it enter the electoral arena is to ask it to make a 180 degree turn from the kind of practice it has engaged in since September 17. Even if you believe that such a turn is the correct course for OWS, the question then becomes, what is your plan for implementing such a turn?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Representative democracy is what voters make it.

My hometown's school district touts an exemplary record, the sports teams all do well, the band is always at the state competition, and plenty of our grads go onto higher levels of learning. This is because the school board elections here matter, parents show up to meetings and complain until things get changed or people get voted out.

I could give you other examples of voter activism that have yielded positive results, if you'd like?

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

Why do so many people choose to make so little of representative democracy. One can be judgemental of the public and say that it's all their fault, but it also might be that people choose not to vote because they don't see much to vote for from their perspective, that voting simply does not seem relevant to their daily lives and their daily concerns.

Is representative democracy doing anything about the crisis in personal debt? About homelessness? About so many people's mortgages being under water? About not being able to make the rent or buy enough groceries for the week or pay a medical bill or an educational bill or most importantly to end all the insecurities that most people face every hour of every day at work?

For the most part the decision making bodies of the state do not address these issues or to the extent that they do, they don't do so in a way that positively affects the vast majority in any significant way. No wonder people don't vote. Why bother.

I'm not here suggesting that voting never matters, but it doesn't matter for so many people so much of the time that it is hard to shake them loose or convince them otherwise in those few instances when it actually does matter.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

In high school, some kids made "A's", some made "B's", and some cared even less about reading, writing, and math, doing even worse. Some cared, but simply weren't as capable as others.

Now, they are ALL voters. Some of them will be GREAT voters, researching every candidate and issue on the ballot and will make a quality vote. Others will do what they can, but won't make a perfectly informed decision. The rest will forget to vote, make a uninformed decision, or will choose to avoid the process altogether.

The simple fact is that most people are just too busy or otherwise not worthy of the process. GA's or representative democracy, either will only be as good as its participants.

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

The premise of democratic theory is that ordinary people have the capacity of govern themselves. Representative government is by definition not self government. I personally do not believe that direct democracy is viable in an absolute sense. On the other hand, like socialism, it's never really been tried, or more accurately the people have yet to try it. Whether or not it is viable, it does seem to me to be accurate that for the most part the representative government we have does not discuss the issues that are really important to most people on a day to day basis. In fact, since most of those issues involve the nature of hierarchy in our culture they are quite literally out of bounds for representative bodies to discuss. And whether or not direct democracy in an absolute sense is viable it does seem to me that we could have much more direct democracy than actually exists both in the political sphere and especially in the work place.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I can only judge a system by its fruits. Representative democracy has delivered both good and bad results. OWS GA's have 'produced' very little to be judged by...

VERY few if any "Motions" have been passed and implemented by GA's.

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

Representative democracy is at this point hundreds of years old whereas OWS is literally only weeks old. It's hardly fair to compare their relative successes.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Unaccountable, unelected leadership is a BAD foot to start out on...

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

RedJazz43...sadly you are wrong. :(

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

OWS does not have unaccountable leadership everyone is a leader and everyone is accountable to themselves.

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

But what if all your research leads to the fact that they both could be right, the blue, the red, Right, Wrong, and when you get to the second year you can't decide. Or, what if you would rather just wait and see, but do what you can in the market, and choose to not vote? or your civil liberties are null and void. Either way, There are a lot of reasons to vote, just as well as there are a lot of reasons to not. But there is never a reason to not be frustrated. And when the only vent is protest, well you get the point. I just hope for the best and work with less?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

There is EVERY reason to "Vote SMART, or NOT at all."

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, and the truth is that damn few Americans actually vote. That is why if we all dig get informed and vote we could have a great impact. I believe that we should do both - work within and without the system. I have never understood tha either/or idea - that somehow you must do one or the other. That seems simply self-defeating to me.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

OWS's core is only interested in revolution, "a GA on every corner"...so I've been told.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

See, when people start talking about OWS's "core" and how "they" have defined this movement's agenda, I start wondering what happened to the 99%, and who appointed "them," whoever "they" are to be our leaders?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

The thing is OWS does have leaders, they are just unaccountable.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

That's just what I have been trying to say. It's really weird. I have always been the most politically radical guy in the room, to the point that I have been ostricized most of my life, but I know when I'm getting hijacked!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I've only found doors closed by those on the inside.

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

Nice to see your post and its many comments. Voting smartly is better than voting randomly, and random voting is better than party-line voting, but not voting is worst of all. Here's why:

1) voting lets us know how the electorate is reacting 2) the voting results show us how adequate or inadequate our own arguments have been 3) when we want to get rid of incumbents (when their judgements have been compromised by the corrupting influence of money), a large voter turnout can result in narrow electoral margins (due to the law of large numbers in random events) with which an organized protest vote can favor the challenger and vote out the incumbent (who usually has a slight psychological advantage)

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

+10...

Thank you for your contribution. :)

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

bills need clarity which is a reason those not educated are diverted when they vote

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I just finished penning two Motions, one to Dismiss and a Motion for Discovery.

Legal writing IS beyond the average bear, but then again I'd rather not replace that system with one where we are subjected to pop or rap lyrics as law.

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

I'd prefer laws everyone can understand

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Then there are no laws you would support. Too many people are too stupid.

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

thou shalt not kill

thou shalt not lie

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Kill or murder?

And lying is essential in this world.

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

Voting because a candidate has a nice smile and their 2 ads you saw seemed nice, is not a qualifier to vote for someone.

vote smart indeed.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Required Reading for EVERY Voter: www.votesmart.org

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

seems to me we have along way to go before voting will be of much help. our choices will be the same this time as last - mitt or some fool worse and then obama running just to the left of them. 3rd party will have trouble taking hold so where is the radical change we need - how do we vote that in? no matter how well informed we have no where to go. getting the government we deserve will take a lot more organizing. isn't that obvious from what happened last election - did we get "change we can believe in" - i don't think so!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Policy isn't made or decided at the executive level.

If you want to change things vote third part for Congress and the Senate. The Tea Party NOW has a seat at the table, while OWS shivers out in the cold...LITERALLY.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

i am not sure i agree - we will see in the next election but the tea party may be one and done - a response to the bailouts and the economic meltdown. lots of people took the "throw the bums out" approach. voting for a 3rd party at this point is a protest vote and may have some effect but i don't see it - where has it gotten us so far? 8 yrs of bush got us a democratic party sweep and a man who said he would begin real change - maybe we need another 8 yrs before we can get someone who will follow through on the promises. look to history as to how real change has occurred in this country - organizing and pressure from below - not voting!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Tea Party Incumbents are IN the room right now.

Where are the OWS policy hounds, at the moment?

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

the ows people are on the outside where they should be - something along this line - Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay taxes during the Mexican War. When Emerson saw Thoreau in jail, he asked him, “what are you doing in there?”

Thoreau’s reply to Emerson is a classic: “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Yeah, but in this case, 'I' WANT to be IN the room where policy is being made.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

maybe, but everything good in this country has come from the pressure of the masses on the outside - so i am ok with that - you can go inside and make the sausage - i want to be on the outside yelling mic check!

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

American Elections: False Choices Hiding Other False Choices

The American elections perpetually televised by our Kleptocracy-controlled media are a smokescreen of false choices distracting attention from even more false choices. At the presidential level and likely others, our election results are predetermined: If not by the billions poured into brainwashing voters through the media, then by rigging the voting machines and if necessary having a tainted judiciary overrule recounts:

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is Your Mind http://www.openfilm.com/videos/psywar

Hacking Democracy http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hacking-democracy

Peace! http://www.hulu.com/watch/177439/peace

This Orwellian subterfuge distracts the attention of the Sheeple from other false choices that have far more impact than which corporate puppet gets to sit in the Oval Office for four years. Those choices currently include: the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) - a loss of real freedoms in return for protection from fabricated threats; the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) - Internet censorship disguised as intellectual property protection; and the Keystone XL Pipeline Project - which will give us dirty energy and ditch-digging jobs at an ecological cost that may include the main water supply for the American Heartland - approval for which was accelerated by a clause buried in the recent Payroll Tax Cut legislation that received bipartisan praise. This deceptive spin and doublespeak has been going on for years, and will continue at an ever-accelerating pace now that Corporate Fascist Puppet President Barack Hussein Obama signed away our Bill of Rights on New Year's Eve, while we were watching balls drop and he was in Hawaii, about as far away as he could be from the uprising of an angry citizenry that never materialized...

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Mainstream media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, or the latest Kardashian crisis. Our elections are staged to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster. As long as corporations own the politicians, it's futile to believe we can "CHANGE" things with our votes.

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Stop Living Wall Street's program!

Your disaffection is Wall Street's success. They do not want you to be apart of democracy. They can't control your vote when you are participating in the democracy. they are controlling your vote when you don't participate.

Channel that disaffection into doing what Wall Street does not want you to do, vote. Engage the political process. Oppose them where they have the most power and the least control, the voting booth.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

"Engaging" in a rigged process with predetermined results - i.e. voting in American elections - offers all the productive potential of the tits on a bull.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Ah, BULL BUTTER!

The process isn't rigged, it is simply controlled by those with tons of money, because Americans are easily programed by snazzy commercials...

That said, 'some' have and DO exercise a discerning temperament and deliver GOOD votes that yield quality representatives. It's rare, but it happens.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Yawn...

We have third parties and both the freedom and the opportunity to create more.

So long as people IGNORE the democratic republic we have at our fingertips, and instead bitch and moan that it isn't perfect, rather than take actions to change it...we'll GET the government we deserve.

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

All third parties do is fragment the votes and make it easier to manipulate the results. Until we get money and corporations completely out of politics, "campaigning" and "voting" is a distracting waste of time, which is exactly what the Kleptocracy intends.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Then how did the Tea Party manage to get several seats in the House?

If Egypt had a democratic republic with free, fair, and open elections, do you think they'd be in the streets?

That said, I AGREE with you that "given our current set of voters", change isn't gonna happen. We need to sharpen and hone voters, convince the lazy and stupid to be just a little more lazy and stay home on election day, or choose to ONLY Vote SMART.

Have you read my speech "Call to Action"?: http://betterliberalarguments.blogspot.com/2010/10/call-to-action.html

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

You are aware that the Tea Party is a subset of the Republican Party, aren't you? And you are aware that they were founded and funded as a front for the Koch Brothers, aren't you?

http://ironboltbruce.blog.com/2011/10/27/an-education-for-leslie-reinitz-an-invitation-for-the-tea-party/

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

And our party would be a subset of the democratic party...

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

I am a member of NO "party", so exclude me from your "our".

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If you aren't a member of a political party, then you are home alone on election day...

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Yes! And here is why...

American Elections: False Choices Hiding Other False Choices

The American elections perpetually televised by our Kleptocracy-controlled media are a smokescreen of false choices distracting attention from even more false choices. At the presidential level and likely others, our election results are predetermined: If not by the billions poured into brainwashing voters through the media, then by rigging the voting machines and if necessary having a tainted judiciary overrule recounts:

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is Your Mind http://www.openfilm.com/videos/psywar

Hacking Democracy http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hacking-democracy

Peace! http://www.hulu.com/watch/177439/peace

This Orwellian subterfuge distracts the attention of the Sheeple from other false choices that have far more impact than which corporate puppet gets to sit in the Oval Office for four years. Those choices currently include: the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) - a loss of real freedoms in return for protection from fabricated threats; the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) - Internet censorship disguised as intellectual property protection; and the Keystone XL Pipeline Project - which will give us dirty energy and ditch-digging jobs at an ecological cost that may include the main water supply for the American Heartland - approval for which was accelerated by a clause buried in the recent Payroll Tax Cut legislation that received bipartisan praise. This deceptive spin and doublespeak has been going on for years, and will continue at an ever-accelerating pace now that Corporate Fascist Puppet President Barack Hussein Obama signed away ou! r Bill of Rights on New Year's Eve, while we were watching balls drop and he was in Hawaii, about as far away as he could be from the uprising of an angry citizenry that never materialized...

IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT OF THE LAST 14 U.S. PRESIDENTS, 7 HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AND 7 HAVE BEEN REPUBLICANS.

Mainstream media focuses on America's two-year election cycles as if who wins or loses in the swinging of the pendulum was a matter of life or death, when in fact even at the Presidential level it makes no more difference than the outcomes of Monday Night Football, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Hillbilly Handfishing, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, or the latest Kardashian crisis. Our elections are staged to give Sheeple the illusion of control so they will (a) vent their frustrations and expend their energy, emotions and resources supporting or attacking the Puppet on the Left hand or the Puppet on the Right, and consequently (b) never recognize and challenge the common omnipotent Puppetmaster. As long as corporations own the politicians, it's futile to believe we can "CHANGE" things with our votes.

NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Again? Really...?

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Yes! And just for you. You must have missed it the first time. Otherwise, your quandery about what I do on election days would make no sense...

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If you aren't casting the best most well researched vote you've ever cast on election day, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago

Clueless. Absolutely clueless...

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

In America, the People are indeed clueless... Voters are COMPLETELY disconnected from the results produced.

We NEED to change.

Voters... "Vote SMART, or NOT at all."

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Yes! Like the Tea Party did in 2010! Vote the bastards out! Hell, the whole government is dancing the Tea Party tune right now. If we want change vote the bastards out!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Getting representatives who truly represent you is the ONLY way to affect change in a democratic republic.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

No stupid voters.

Only stupid candidates and political parties.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If your congressman has an approval rating in the TENS, and you vote to re-elect him...then you are STUPID.

If you don't like the candidates run yourself, or form your own party.

But at present, voters suck, period.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Their the only voters we got....

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Actually, there's TONS more available... In fact, most potential voters stay out of the process altogether.

Only 2/3 of us are even registered, whom qualify. And only half of those actually show up.

So there are PLENTY of people available to 'swing' an election, but the most important thing is that we EDUCATE those who vote, much more so than we do now.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Your preaching to the choir.

I firmly believe that if we could get all of the OWS people to engage the primary elections we could easily achieve the same results, or better, than the tea party achieved in 2010. A few OWS supported candidates running against any of the really corrupt Democrats or Republicans and making a good showing in the primary would really freak out the status quo. In both of the dominance parties.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

AGREED. +10...

Being a 501c3 disallows any such actions.

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

Is OWS a 501c3 nonprofit corporation?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Sorta...its money is held by a 501c3, so that it is shelter from taxes, but OWS itself has not filed for such protections.

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

Thank you. I was wondering what restrictions there might be on political activity related to the use of that money. This question I can easily research for myself.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

There's a post titled "Why the Hell is OWS a 501c3?"

Therein, you'll find plenty of links describing what limitations exist on 501c3's...Long story short, being a 501c3 makes an organization legally bond to be apolitical.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Which is why we need to act unilaterally.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

'I' have been politically active since I was 18. I've even ran for office a couple of times.

I HOPED OWS would be a platform for progressive liberals, but it isn't...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

OWS is what we make of it.

I learned long ago that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Keep exposing people to alternative ideas and some will sink in where it is possible for them to sink in. The rest are throwing shit at a brick wall. they may stick but they won't sink in. Life in the big toilet.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I like your post and I do not want to sound overcritical.

There seems to be a large time focused on the how to do something but not very much spent on actual issues that need to be addressed.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

emma goldman was right! seems to me we have along way to go before voting will be of much help. our choices will be the same this time as last - mitt or some fool worse and then obama running just to the left of them. 3rd party will have trouble taking hold so where is the radical change we need - how do we vote that in? no matter how well informed we have no where to go. getting the government we deserve will take a lot more organizing. isn't that obvious from what happened last election - did we get "change we can believe in" - i don't think so!

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

A third party needs to be built from the ground up. A third party will hand the presidency into the GOP. It would then be forced to align itself with one of the two parties available at this time.

Take a look at this. http://www.thenation.com/blog/164453/why-koch-brothers-and-alec-dont-want-you-vote

[-] 2 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

neither party wants us to vote - other countries make it much easier to vote - easier to register and voting on weekends etc. i assume you know all of this. if ron paul is the third party or even rocky anderson i am not sure that would favor the gop over the dems. the problem for me is who do i vote for??? obama is gop lite - i will not vote for him - bombing how many countries and bailing out which class - and how many more bombings in the next term???

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

"Neither party wants us to vote"

To believe this, you must not have been paying attention.

In fact, it's the republican party that has discouraged voting, in every way they can.

In fact, it's the republican party that demonizes attempts to increase voter participation. You do remember ACORN?

The republican demonetization of community organizers?

You are aware of the concerted efforts in Wisconsin and other States, by republicans to limit voter participation?

Democrats encourage voting, republicans discourage it.

That's the reality.

[-] 2 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

sorry - the gop is the worst offender but i stand by my statement - we would have same day registration and weekend voting if you were correct -this has been going on for decades -nothing new here!

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

You show me where the dems have actively discouraged voting.

(R)epubs, do it all the time.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

The Drug War that the Democrats have been just as active in prosecuting as the Republicans. Clinton gave America its first world record prison population. Obama has given America its second highest world record prison population.

Millions of Americans, mostly poor and black, disenfranchised and disaffected by policies aggressively enforced by DEMOCRATS!

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah-ya

and it was that fukcin RAY-gun who formally declared war on drugs - while simultaneously selling drugs on American streets to support arms shipments to S. America

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

No it wasn't. Reagan simply took up the existing opportunity that he saw to mass disenfranchise minority and poverty oppressed communities.

It was Richard Nixon, in collusion with the Dixie-crats in Congress in Congress in 1971 who created the War on Drugs. Its formally called the Controlled Substances Act of 1971. It was created specifically to subvert and undermine the Voting Rights Act of six years earlier in 1965. And the 26st Amendment of 1971. It has been very successful at that. And only that.

History:

Jim Crow stood on two legs in America for more than one hundred years. One leg was direct denial of access to polls and the electoral process. The Voting rights Act addressed and stopped many of the subversive tactics that propped up that leg.

the other leg of Jim Crow was more insidious, mass criminal disenfranchisement using trumped up prosecutions. Most of America's earliest drug laws, dating to before 1900 were motivated by Jim Crow and used against black Americans, Mexican Americans and Chinese Americans.

This is supported by what I refer to as the Jim Crow exception in the 14th Amendment.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"without due process of law"

As long as the racists can find an excuse to convict a person of a crime they can deprive that person of their franchise. Richard Nixon and the Dixie-crats exploited this to the hilt. As have every Republican and Democratic government since then.

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

I would like to give a point for this, as I too hate our level incarceration.

I just don't believe it was done do discourage voting.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

the huge incarceration levels support "safe' legislative districts by transplanting large numbers of urban minorities to rural white conservative district prisons where they are counted in the census to apportionment but have no vote. Prison populations often make a 3-5% difference in the populations of such districts which is often the winning margin.

At the same time their urban home districts are more easily gerrymandered to weaken the minority voting power by their lower population due to high concentrations of minority voters sitting in rural prisons.

SEE: The Prison Policy Initiative where it is all documented. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

jsut look at our system and then sweden (or any country in europe)- don't tell me you cannot remember a time when the dems had control of the government - so why didn't they put the elections on the weekend?? agreed that the gop is worse but neither want to rock the boat - very hard to get 3rd party voting - two wings of the same party as far as i can see. which one of those great murderers did you like - jfk, lbj, clinton - the latest mad bomber?

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

I didn't think you could show me, and you didn't.

Weekend voting is a red herring.

(R)epublicans have actively demonized voter participation. Dems have not.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

the evidence is right in front of you. you must be young to believe in the dems - i am too old for that - what did bush the younger say - "fool me once" -vote as often as you like but do not be deluded! here is noam - NOAM Chomsky speaks to Der Spiegel about Europe's Barack Obama delusions. Spiegel: Change is the slogan of this year's presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the US? Or, to use use Obama's battle cry: Are you fired up? Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion. Spiegel: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society. Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues. Spiegel: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you? Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest, even though they see it the same way. Spiegel: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform? Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The US has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Obama is gop lite - sooo true.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

sad but true - he had a chance to change the world and blew it

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

And of course - now that it is reelection time ---- all of a sudden he cares about the little guys again....

anybody who watched 'Inside Job" knows Obama is gop lite

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is a repelican as is his son. I am not voting for Rocky Anderson. Many states do not go with a popular vote. Historically, this has done nothing more than hand take enough voters away from one party that hands it to another.

Do you have a town council or county council or both?

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

Here is the TEA POTTY document that they used to take over the Rs


The Most Powerful Office In The World - Is NOT The President of the United States!
[ If I told you who wrote this, I'd lose my lunch - you would too]


The Most Powerful Office In The World - Is NOT The President of the United States! Now wait a minute. Isn't the President of the United States the leader of the Western World, the man with his hand on the nuclear trigger, the head of a ten-trillion dollar nation? The President is, indeed, the most powerful man in the world - but the presidency is not the most powerful office in the world.
Another office is more powerful because it chooses whose names will appear on the ballot for elective office and what will be the policies of the political parties that provide the major support for those candidates. To understand why this office is so powerful, you must understand the Seven Steps of government.

To change things, you have to change the law.
Are there things about our country you want to change? Taxes? Schools? Regulations? Are you satisfied with the way the present Congress is spending our money, and reducing our liberties? Our Constitution makes Congress the most powerful branch of government. It can pass laws, impose taxes, and spend our money. State Legislatures are powerful, too, especially over public schools. So, if you don't like the present policies, what are you going to do about it? Our Constitution gives us a way to remedy laws, policies, and taxes — members of the House of Representatives in Congress and the lower house of each State Legislature must run for office every two years.

To change the laws, you have to change the people who make them. Congress and the State Legislatures pass thousands of laws every year. No citizen or group can possibly read them all, research them to find out their effect in advance, or alert their friends to go into action with letter-writing and phone-calling. If you want to change the laws or taxes, you must elect representatives you can reliably count on to vote for Americans!

To be elected, your candidate must be on the ballot. How often have you voted for "the lesser of two evils" when you didn't like either of the two candidates running for an important office? Have you ever wondered why, despite the rhetoric, both candidates seem to back the same pro-business pro-1% pro military?

To get on the ballot in a general election, you have to be nominated for an office in a Party Primary Election or Convention. The winners in the Party Primary or Convention will be the candidates who appear on the ballot in November. Except in very rare cases, all candidates must first win a Party Primary or Convention. Write-in campaigns are theoretically possible, but they rarely succeed. Third-party candidates are theoretically possible, but unless a candidate has as much money as Ross Perot, running as a third-party candidate probably won't be successful and the votes may not even be counted or reported.

Candidates endorsed by the Party usually win the Primary Election. Most voters don't investigate the Primary candidates, or even find out who they are. Sometimes, many candidates run in the Primary for nomination to the same office and the voters are confused. Only a small minority of Americans vote in Primary elections. One of the reasons for the small turnout in Primary elections (in addition to voter apathy) is that you usually must declare yourself a member of one Party or another in order to vote in the Primary. Most Americans don't want to do that. The result is that persons nominated to be the candidate on the ballot in the general election are chosen by those who are willing to declare themselves in the Primary or Convention that selects the nominees. Sometimes the Party organization actually "endorses" candidates in the Primary Election. Many voters who don't know much about the candidates vote for the "endorsed" candidate just because they are disposed to support that Party's candidate.

Primary endorsements are often made by the Party's "County Committee" (or Township Committee, etc.), which is elected by the Precinct Committeemen of the Party. Each political party has national state, county, township, and (in the big cities) ward organizations (usually called committees or central committees). The county and township committees frequently endorse candidates in the Primary, and that endorsement is often the key to a Primary victory. The county chairman and the county central committee (or executive committee) are elected every two years (usually) by the Precinct Committeemen (sometimes called Precinct Chairmen) who, in turn, are elected in their individual precincts. Thus, the Chairman of the County Central Committee is elected at a county convention of the more than County Precinct Committeemen who were themselves elected on the ballot in the previous Primary Election. It's not necessary to have a majority of Precinct Committeemen to influence the endorsement process. In a typical county, some will be liberals and some conservatives, but the majority will be Party Regulars who are interested in patronage and power, not issues. They can be influenced to support your candidate if you can persuasively show that he has a good chance to win. For Party Regulars, winning is the name of the game.

It's easy to be elected a Precinct Committeeman. The way you get elected a Precinct Committeeman is usually very simple. In a typical state, you can call your county clerk and get the necessary forms, get ten of your friends to sign a Petition requesting that you be on the ballot in the Primary as a candidate for Precinct Committeeman, and file the Petition by the required date. Then you walk around your precinct, knock on one door after another, and say, "I would appreciate it if you would vote for me for Precinct Committeeman. You will find me on the ballot in the Primary election on Tuesday, ___." If you win you are the elected Precinct Committeeman for your precinct. Of course, if your precinct already has a good Precinct Committeeman who is doing his job, he may not take kindly to you as an upstart and he may defeat you. You should find out the situation before making your decision.

However, a typical county may have dozens of precincts without any Precinct Committeeman because no one has bothered to run. It is sometimes easy to be appointed to one of these positions by calling your Party Chairman. Many precincts have do-nothing Committeemen who can easily be defeated because they don't do their job.

To change things, we must change the laws.
To change the laws, we must change the people who make them.
To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.
To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.
To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeemen.

Therefore, Precinct Committeeman is the most powerful office in the world because Precinct Committeemen determine who gets the chance to be elected to office at every level of government. Remember, if your candidate is not on the ballot, he will not be elected. Party rules and titles vary widely from state to state, but usually the two parties in a given state use the same system.

Duties of the Precinct Committeeman The Precinct Committeeman is the person who is legally charged with getting out the vote on election day. If he does his job well, he will ring the doorbell of every household in the precinct and ask polite questions to find out the Party and other political views of every voter. (That's called canvassing.) Then, before each election, the Precinct Committeeman will personally deliver campaign literature (such as a marked sample ballot) to every voter who is expected to vote for your Party or candidate. Then the Precinct Committeeman makes sure that all his voters get to the polls on election day. This is the way elections are won.

Powers of the Precinct Committeeman

Friendly access to neighbors. Most people are eager to know more about their government and the people who run it. When you introduce yourself as their "Precinct Committeeman," they assume you have something to say. You can provide them with information on candidates and issues. Of course, you don't waste your time on those who would rather get their information from the Precinct Committeeman of the other Party.

Respect from elected officials. Since a Precinct Committeeman represents, on average, 500 voters, and has the power to vote for other Party officials and to make endorsements of candidates, any call or letter from a Precinct Committeeman gets the attention of elected officials.

Launching pad for other offices. You would be amazed at how many of our Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and state and local officials started as Precinct Committeemen, and still serve as Precinct Committeemen even though they hold a higher elected office. That's because they know the power of a Precinct Committeeman.

Direct influence over Party Platform, policies, and selection of candidates. At state, district, county, and township caucuses and conventions, the Precinct Committeeman is an active player. He can have a tremendous influence on the adoption of the Party Platform and policies, support of or opposition to issues, and selection of candidates.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You need to break that down into paragraphs. That is freakin' painful.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

NOAM Chomsky speaks to Der Spiegel about Europe's Barack Obama delusions. Spiegel: Change is the slogan of this year's presidential election. Do you see any chance for an immediate, tangible change in the US? Or, to use use Obama's battle cry: Are you fired up? Chomsky: Not in the least. The European reaction to Obama is a European delusion. Spiegel: But he does say things that Europe has long been waiting for. He talks about the trans-Atlantic partnership, the priority of diplomacy and the reconciling of American society. Chomsky: That is all rhetoric. Who cares about that? This whole election campaign deals with soaring rhetoric, hope, change, all sorts of things, but not with issues. Spiegel: Is there nothing about McCain that appeals to you? Chomsky: In one aspect he is more honest than his opponent. He explicitly states that this election is not about issues but about personalities. The Democrats are not quite as honest, even though they see it the same way. Spiegel: So for you, Republicans and Democrats represent just slight variations of the same political platform? Chomsky: Of course there are differences, but they are not fundamental. Nobody should have any illusions. The US has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Even so, there is a remarkable difference when it comes to Social Security and privatization or faux privatization. http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=684

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

agreed on rp and son but how about mr obama - just reading suskinds book - not a pretty picture of how the man ran his first years in office. town council - if you are going to the local election play i would agree here also

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am voting for Obama. This does not mean that I am in full support of the Democratic party. In fact, I would advise them that they had better get it together and regroup. I am an Independent. I refuse to vote for anything that smells even remotely close to Tea Party or a Repelican.

The reason that people need to start local is because we have an electoral college.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

again, agreed - vote for him - my wife is but i will not - no hope and change there - i did not vote for him the first time and predicted that this is what we would get - it wasn't hard to do. the historical evidence is on emma goldman's side. i would vote for ike or nixon or lbj if they ran today - i never would have believed that 40 yrs ago. very sad state of affairs - the book is very interesting - obama was out of his depth. maybe the next 4 yrs will be different but i doubt it -most of that $1 billion he plans to raise will have to come from wall street

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

We are looking at a possible next 20 years of economic crisis. I am beginning to wonder if this country will survive another Repelican in office. I don't think so. Hell, most of our states are not surviving the right wing assault.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

yes all too true but clinton has to take a good piece of the blame and obama has done nothing but make things worse - "first do no harm" was his motto. we are in for a long slow slide (google how much work 1 barrel of oil will do - if that doesn't make you realize we are in for trouble nothing will). we are running out of oil and all the other commodities we need to run our modern society - no one in power can address that

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh........there are a lot of things that I can slam Clinton for. Don't mistake me.

That said, we have to start picking up the pieces right now and more specifically of how those pieces relate to our own citizens.

[-] 1 points by flip (7038) 2 years ago

one again i agree - now the question is how - not sure voting will do the trick - of course not voting won't do it either so .... organize!

[-] -1 points by PileOfSmegAKAZenDog (-30) 2 years ago

HA HAW HEE HAR HIDEY HAR HAR GAHILK PUKE!!!

yeah, you vote obama....... funny keyrap

Interesting, it appears you've gotten that foul mouth of yours washed out with battery acid. It's hard to cry to the police when they typically aren't interested in molly coddling potty mouthed hate mongers.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Policy is decided by the legislature not the executive...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am aware of this.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

So don't worry about a 3rd party executive, it isn't as important as 3rd party legislatures.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That isn't what the historical pattern shows. So, yes, it is something to be concerned about.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

3rd parties unseat traditional ones through legislative grassroots efforts...not singular individuals.

[-] 0 points by survivor514 (65) 2 years ago

A third party will hand the election over to Obama

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I doubt it.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

The ONLY issue as I see it, is voter ineptitude.

If voters held elected officials accountable for their shortcomings, then our corruption problems would be nonexistent.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I wouldn't be so sure. Not that I don't see a problem with voter ineptitude. Referendums are a form of direct democracy. One that I disagree with.

Whether you accept it or not there has been a great deal of knowledge that has been gathered and shared between people of changes that can be made and are being made.

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

hitler didn't do it
..................the Germans did
torquemada didn't do it
..................the Spanish did it
the greedy-capitalist-politicians didn't do it

..................WE DID IT


NOW

we can stay stuck theorizing about how to create a better world

OR

WE CAN CREATE A BETTER WORLD

NOW ! ! ! !

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That is what I been saying.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

"BECOME the change you seek."

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If we had 'better/more informed' voters, OWS would likely not exist.

Voter apathy led to corruption which beget OWS.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Voter ID laws??? That 10% of the general population lacks a government ID is NOT what is keeping our democracy full of cronies.

Most Americans don't vote. Those who do, do a horrible job.

If you want a better more responsible government, "Vote SMART, or not at all."

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

yawn

Then my guess is you had better start bringing specific issues to the forefront of the public.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

In my home county we had a ballot initiative available to us, direct democracy if you will. The voters had the opportunity to issue a bond to repair and upgrade our local community college.

Out of the 23,000 already registered voters, not counting the 5-10,000 to aren't registered, but qualify. Guess how many showed up to cast a ballot?

3,800.

In a democratic republic if 'they' are powerful, it's because we don't give a rat's ass...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I also live in an area where voter turn out is quite low. However, we also had two that ran as Democrat and then turned around and changed parties after they were elected. And not a thing was done or said. Unfortunately, it is a scenario of begets. One action begets another and the more disenfranchised that voters feel during the process the less that they participate in the process.

Even so, I am not arguing that many voters are not inept. I am saying that you have a two way street. So, don't lay the complete blame on the voters.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Who decides elections?

I mean, of course 'money' affects outcomes, but money does't decide elections. Voters can and do see through the BS and choose 'good' leaders... Don't laugh. While it is rare, people DO make good informed decisions, and hold elected officials accountable for their mistakes.

Of course, most of the time this isn't the case, people just don't give a poo. Did you know that only 2/3 of us are even registered whom qualify? Of that, you are LUCKY if half show up. Those who do are usually old, and unchanging... I blame disillusioned young and middle aged people, who are too busy doing their own thing, to be concerned with the actions of government.

[-] 0 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Instead of not voting, why not hold a mock election parallel to the legitimate one? Promote the mock election, not as alternative to the legitimate one, but as a shadow of discontent with the status quo. Strive for numbers that will embarrass the legitimate election. What say ye?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

At the end of your story, who gets to make policy, thereafter?

I think it would be best to spend our time creating a platform that privates and inspires MOST Americans, then spend time educating people about the importance of a well-informed vote.

I say we tell people to "vote SMART, or not at all."

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Don't vote:

The Vote for Nobody Campaign http://www.anti-politics.ws/

Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If you don't know what the hell is going on, I BEG you please DO NOT VOTE...

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Hey, knowing or not, don't vote!

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

So you don't want or like representative democracy?

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

That is correct. Democracy is a fraud designed to get people to accept being ruled. In other words, an elected dictatorship is still a dictatorship.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

We have "3" branches of government, not a singular dictator.

[-] 1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Keep dreaming:

Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans who have been working to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing billions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our nation’s greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination, all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers, with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society.

— John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching [1944]

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

We don't have Fascism, in America. We didn't have it in 1944 and we don't had it today.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

No, what we have is the threat of fascism, because people went to sleep! A corporate run state is fascism, and we're skirting the line really close right now. What we need to do is SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY!

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

"Vote SMART, or not at all."

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Got that RIGHT!!!

[-] -2 points by queenann (-220) from New Rochelle, NY 2 years ago

Rick Santorum is an excellent candidate. Go Rick !!

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Santorum, REALLY?

[-] -1 points by queenann (-220) from New Rochelle, NY 2 years ago

Have you listened to him? He is a breath of fresh air. OWS needs to drop the partisan class warfare tactics. People so hung up on labels, come off as haters with out solutions.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

He wants states to be able to make condums illegal...