Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Which candidate and why?

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 10:52 p.m. EST by aerocity (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hey guys, I'm just wondering which candidate you support, and exactly why you support them. Thanks for the input.(:

49 Comments

49 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by FObama (470) 13 years ago

Anybody but Obama. He has corn holed our way of life. Another term and we will have more retards protesting.

[-] 2 points by LincolnCA (160) 13 years ago

Kermit the Frog, because A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama and vice versa, let's just call them Oromba!

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

Given the new light being shed on the existing health care bill, LMFO

[-] 2 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

well newt is out cause he is a raging hypocrite who went after clinton for getting a blow job in the office while he was having an affair under his dying wifes nose..when he got caught...when he served her divorce papers in the hospital she said how can u go after clinton when you are doing this and he said (its not important what i do its important what i say) hes the dick of dicks..hes the ace of lies..obama should endorse or at least support some of ows and obama should move to the left...anyhow hes the lesser of 2 evils and just 1 third of government anyway...people change history not presidents

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Give me a break. It's mainstream for politicians to have affairs. You have over dramatized this. I could care less what Newt has done in his personal life. If he can get things done in the White House, I want him in there. What Clinton did in his personal life didn't have much of an affect on him. He beat Bob Dole. Clinton is considered to be one of the best presidents we've had. He and Newt worked together on a lot of issues. Bipartisanship is key for our government to be efficient and effective. Simple as that.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

right newt is in the obstructionist party that wants to abolish unions health care ssi and everyone not male or white..oh yea im really gonna vote for a white republican thieving lying freak like that.!! and i didnt overstate anything..hes an actor and a paid servant of buisness...no more american kabuki theatre

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

So you are calling Newt Gingrich a racist? Wouldn't that make Herman Cain a racist then too, since they both agree on virtually everything (other than Cain's 9-9-9 plan). Don't even get me started on unions.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

and cain is an uncle tom..i got self respect rich or poor he cant get me to bow down...ive worked harder than him in my life i have honor he has ego

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

I don't know how hard you have worked, sir. For you to say Herman Cain is an "uncle tom" is 100% ridiculous. Do some research on the man and stop making ridiculous statements.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

ceo..big tough demeaner like he knows it all no compassion dosent even acknowledge the civil rights struggle which he never participated in while he was local to it and in college..i dont care if he is a member of the republican party he can go fuck himself

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Sounds like someone is bitter. Maybe Herman Cain felt that his education was important?

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

i was in 3 unions i know unions can go over the top..ive seen it 1200 guys dumped on the street in 1 day cause they wudnt budge on increase freeze for 2 years in 1980..they blew it for themselves..but newt is just a fat smilyfaced lizard period..just dont like him..obama is better

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Some unions are fine, but there are plenty who have given the term union a bad taste in many Americans mouths. You believe that all the scumbag moves that Obama has made deserves him another term in the White House? Come on Michael. Think about this for a second. Solyndra, Brazil, General Electric, etc., etc. Do some research my friend. You'll soon see what our current president likes to do with the taxpayer dollars and who he befriends.

[-] 1 points by michaelbravo (222) 13 years ago

ima good student tell me about brazil ..solyndra wasnt his fault and they spend more than that on napkins in congress

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago

Invested it Petrobus(Brazilian oil company), Then went to Brazil and told them he would like for U.S., to be their best customer.

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 13 years ago

He went to Solyndra, propped them up as the future of energy in our country. Think he might have done a little research before hand? You just made a point where you agreed with the tea party, overspending.

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

America invested in Brazil. I am not going to explain it all. Do some research, you obviously have a computer.

[-] 2 points by hebronjames1 (70) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Buddy Roemer. He is running his campaign solely on donations of $100 or less. He is focused on actually ending bought government and too big to fail. He's running the Republican primary but his message embodies OWS' message. Unsurprisingly, he has been shut out of the debates

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

Been saying that all over this forum (even on this post), not in so many words. Glad someone else out there is doing their homework.

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Well...considering that both the incumbent and republican nominee will be running BILLION dollar campaigns, I believe your Buddy is going to fail.

[-] 1 points by hebronjames1 (70) from New York, NY 13 years ago

isn't part of OWS about ideals? I realize he has virtually no shot.

[-] 1 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Shouldn't it be about reality as well....?

[-] 1 points by hebronjames1 (70) from New York, NY 13 years ago

I think movements are about shaping reality as well. The CRM changed political reality. Doubt OWS will change the political reality to make Roemer our next president, but moving in that direction ain't a bad thing.

[-] 1 points by astramari (57) 13 years ago

They are all bad, we need someone else who is not in bed with big money.

[-] 1 points by gagablogger (207) 13 years ago

You should def vote forRon Paul is you are not for a womans right to choose, if you don't support our public schools, if you don't support govt funding of the arts, and if you were against the civil rights act of 1964.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

I notice NO ONE is mentioning Herman Cain or Rick Perry. This gives me more hope than anything.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

If not Buddy Roemer, I'm sticking with the "devil I know".

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 13 years ago

I'm voting against every incumbent. Towing the party line instead of the people's line is the first step to the unemployment line.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

All bought, can't vote for any of them.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

I like Romney, which I know I will get flamed for.

I think he is the one who can most easily beat Obama and I agree with him on a lot of his policies, but far from all of them. I personally believe he knows the economy better than any of the candidates. I realize he became successful in part by laying people off but that was his job. He turned companies around and made them run smoother. That is exactly what needs to be done for the federal government.

[-] 2 points by brochompsy (91) from New York, NY 13 years ago

I'm from Massachusetts.

I speak for the people of my state when I say we don't like Mitt Romney.

[-] 1 points by hotdoghenry (268) 13 years ago

You don't speak for the people of Mass. you bone head! Who the fuck are you?

[-] 1 points by brochompsy (91) from New York, NY 13 years ago

The Spokesperson for Massachusetts. I already told you.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

You have to realize though that he was a moderate conservative in one of the most liberal states. It was a marriage destined for failure.

[-] 1 points by brochompsy (91) from New York, NY 13 years ago

I still don't know how he could have been elected there. Then again, I personally voted for Scott Brown...

But I can vouch for the fact that Romney is a flip-flopper. Just like other Massachusetts politicians. He was much more liberal in Massachusetts so he could get elected.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

Yeah and he is probably being a little extra conservative now. I feel like he is only truly fiscally conservative and he likely doesn't place a high priority on social issues, one way or the other. Which is kind of what I like in my politicians.

[-] 1 points by brochompsy (91) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Well, I agree with you there. We need a candidate who doesn't try to distract us with social commentary. We need someone who will simply focus on fiscal policy.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

Romney is a platform changer (otherwise known as a flip-flopper). And it's not about "who can beat Obama". That's the message you're being sold. Don't buy it. Get a good candidate with a strong message and ANYONE can "beat Obama". Too bad they're few and far between. The GOP is having the same problem the Dems had in 2004.
Doesn't Romney kind of look like John Kerry?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

His flip-flopping is just politics. He only flips on social issues to appease a certain base. It is just politics. I want him for his fiscal policies. I doubt he prioritizes social issues one way or the other.

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform in the 1st link. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 13 years ago

I don't know about "becoming bankers" ourselves. It runs the risk of "becoming what you behold". What NEEDS to happen is a productive CREATIVE spirit re-emerging in the US. We need to make something other than money.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

I totally agree with you, but you MUST control the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters FIRST, before you can delete them and create the next step.

[-] -2 points by YourSoDumb (42) 13 years ago

Newt Gingrich. The reason why is simple. The man is a genius. Not only is he a genius but he has WAY more experience than any other candidate with bipartisanship. He has way more experience dealing with our federal government than any other candidate. Finally, he is one hell of a debater that knows what to say and when to say it. He would eat Obummer for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in a debate.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

So what? Both bought with corporate money. Both can gtfo.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

I agree, I would love to see him debate Obama and his teleprompter. He would be embarrassed.