Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who should we vote for?

Posted 2 years ago on April 27, 2012, 12:46 a.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Who should we vote for? A person who does not owe allegiance to a party, or a corporation, or special interest group. He should only be loyal to the people he represents. It couldn't be any simpler.

So where is this man? He refused to join a party, or receive the backing of businesses and other powerful groups. He only thought about the people he would represent and knew if he accepted these other endorsements, he would become loyal to those people instead.

He ran for office, but few ever heard of him. He didn't have much money to spend on fancy campaign literature because he preferred to stay pure and untainted and not accept the large sums of money that others did.

So who should we vote for?

133 Comments

133 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Pinocchio, he has a built in lie detector.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The Invisible Man?

[-] 3 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Goldman Sacs seems to be the only viable choice.

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

Funny, but in a way true. They support Romney, so a vote for him is a vote for Goldman.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

Let's see. First, we're lucky to get more than half of the eligible voters to even bother to vote. Many who do vote spend little time researching candidates objectively. You know, busy. Too Busy. Then there's the rest of us of who deal with a good riddle or two. If the heavy weight of evidence and facts get us down we could, I say could, change our mind, but not easily. But we can change, if we really want to, and have a shot to really know the evident truth, if we work at it. We are the few, the proud.

So, JR, considering these huge problems before you mentioned the perfect candidate, might have helped keep you anchored better to the Earth. I used to be an idealist in my younger years, but the cold slap of reality has a way of diffusing these high fluting ideas into confusion and obsolesce.

I suggest you work your way through it and get back in the game. Be practical but damned very effective. You have a limited amount of energy to expend here like the rest of us. Make it count and come join the team as we wade into the big battle to win our country back from the grips greedy selfish bastards who have us by the throat.

We need you and you need us. Your idealism is commendable, just turn that energy back to action that makes those clowns in Washington stop laughing and start answering our questions. We need a Head Count of all the senators and representatives who have lied to us relentlessly, and have catered to the rich who fund their campaigns so they win by out spending any opposition. Get the names of the jack-offs who voted against letting the Bush tax cuts expire. And who voted to subsidize big oil instead of ridding them of the subsidies.

No perfection. Just dirt and scum. And someone has to clean up this crap. Good Citizens help with dusting.

The Puzzler

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

Idealism or practicality. Liberty or safety. I aim for the center, liberty. I won't aim for the middle, safety, as it frequently misses the target and lands on the outer edge, bondage.

[-] -1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Nice little bit of rhetoric. Keep it up and you might even become a practiced lair, or even an accomplished sophist. Then you could run for the Republicans.

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

Call me deceitful or a liar, but never a Republican!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Okay, I liked that response. Henseforth I will never call you a Republican. Some insults may be truely punching below the belt.

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

elections shoul be national and state holidays

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

The US is monetarily sovereign. The Bush tax cuts don't matter because we can print any amount of money needed.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If such a person were runnng today and such a person could actually win, I would vote for him. But there is no such person and there is no such possible outcome for now, so the question is moot.

Right now I will vote for the one that won't put us into a second Great Recession or stack the courts with proto-fascists.

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

You will only vote for an honest person who can win? If everyone thinks like that it guarantees that an honest man will never win. An honest man will never accept the corrupting influence that would enable him to convince people he can win.

If the corrupting influence is removed from politics, then the honest man will prevail.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If you vote for someone who can't win, especially as it is the left who always dies this, the Republicans win. I hate that as much as yo do, but with the system as it is now, without a viable third party,that is the only scenario. Splitting one side's vote strengthens the other.

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

There are just as many people on the right who feel and do exactly the same as you. As long as both sides do this, there is no chance for a third party or independent candidate winning. In fact you are both more likely to have more in common with and vote for a non two party candidate

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Historically, the right has voted in lock step. This is especially the case when they are impassioned: they turn out in greater numbers and vote in one unified block. That does not reflect the pattern of the left, who tend to be far more individualistic and idealistic in their voting patterns, and also (God knows why) tend to come out in fewer numbers. When either side is dissatisfied with a candidate, they tend to stay home or split the vote more. In this upcoming election, the right wing base is tremendously energized, not so much in favor of Romney, but virulently against Obama. The left, on the other hand, is sullen and feel (rightly in many cases) betrayed. That's very good news for the Republicans, and is the kind of condition that has me literally losing sleep.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

Exactly. I pay a fair amount of attention to the right and there has never been more animosity towards Republicans that I can recall.

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

Waiting in line at the polling booth one person asked "who ya goin to vote for?" "Me, I always vote for my party, how bout you?" "I always go with whoever my union supports" Another person added, "I'm votin for the guy that's goin to redevelop downtown."

Neither person voted for the candidate they really wanted. Just the one they were told to vote for, the one who would be good for somebody else. And somebody else did benefit, while the people who cast the votes did not. So again I ask, who should we vote for?

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

Wait, is this a trick question?

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

No trick. Just read between the lines.

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

If you have a point to make, why don't you just make it? Who should we vote for?

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

Read the second and third sentence.

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

Read them.

[-] 0 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

whoever who care about people nor corporations and federal government. whoever who not afraid to debate about FRS. it is very shame to see majority of people are unable to decide the course which the country going to. President elections overseas had "few" demonstrations. Because many people considered that right candidate wasn't represented at all. So they had the choice of the choiceless where you have to pick up less evilness between 2 or 3 candidates.

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

Having to pick between the lesser of two evils is a result of an even greater evil, fear.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

if you follow my flow you'll understand there is nothing to fear about right choice. because it is gonna be not your fair but Ron fault.

[-] 1 points by grt1968 (2) 2 years ago

America, WAKE UP. These little comment sections (Yahoo News)are here to distract you from the things that really matter. If you haven't relized by now that the GOP and whoever represents them have only ONE PURPOSE. That purpose is to DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS. Uncomprohendable, but true. One republician, RonaldK, on Yahoo called Romney a "class warrior". Why do you think they INVITED immigrants here and told us it was to do the jobs "THAT AMERICAN'S WOULD NOT DO"? Why do you think they sent the American manufacturing jobs to Communist China? Why do you think they stold your 401Ks? Why do you think they used SCAM banking loans against you. These where ACTS OF TREASON. We know this started with Reagon himself. Reagon started the Iran-Contra, senior Reagan officials secretly arranged the sale of arms to Iran. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras through the appropriated funds had been stopped by the Democratic Congress. Then GH told America there was "NO Social Security Fund". Today the US government OWES SS $6.3 TRILLION, this makes SS the LARGEST HOLDER of our national debt. GW did the first four things in the beginning of this comment. And what did the American people do during all of this? The same thing as our "DO NOTHING CONGRESS"; they sit and DID NOTHING. Congress does nothing because they are just waiting to finish their PLAN. They only need one more term to do this. America, I'm old so this want affect me to much or for to long. But young America this will change (DESTROY) your lives forever. If you don't join together and do something, you're going down, hard and fast. Still sounds UNCOMPROHENDABLE, and I understand this. But you MUST open your minds and react. If you have to buy NOTHING but food for a year it will be worth it. If you have to take your vacations to march on Washington it will be worth it. If we have to die for it, it will be worth it. When you see the second signs of this, as you missed the one I told you about, STAND UP FOR YOUR FREEDOMS and hope the military represents you and not the Pentagon. Romney's budget expands the military at a cost of your futures and the older peoples health. America, what did we do when ALL of this happened. We sit and DID NOTHING. Continue to sit and DO NOTHING and watch the Caste System fall into place. The Occupy Movement is the only thing I have seen in this country where people relized something was wrong and tried to educate America. Their freedom of speech was buried in the hopes of doing away with them. If this election is stolen like the one in 2001, then it is to late. Your world, your future is gone.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 2 years ago

The strongest anti-fascist ???

In any national election, who else ?

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

No one.

Get the Free Democracy Amendment passed http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ then pass a law banning all political parties so that only independents can run for office.

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

No one, not even someone who mirrors your views?

Like the general direction of you amendment.

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

And who would that be? What politician would support it without overwhelmingly popular pressure from the voters?

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Maybe he's a she.

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

I will vote for someone who will make a difference -

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 Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
OR
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore

OR

Are you afraid to answer a simple question -
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?
……tell me why ( roberts + alito ) = ( sotomayor & kagan ) ?


If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and believe that President Gore would invade Iraq,
…….or that President Gore would NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind


If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy


Just because Scalia and Thomas take koch brothers money – you don’t have to


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

It seems to be checkmate then. Vote for Obama and he continues to sign our liberties away. Vote for someone who won't, but loses, then Romney signs our liberties away.

If a Supreme Court Justice is replaced in the next four years, our liberties might be further eroded, but vote for Romney or Obama, it will be guaranteed.

So we continue to choose the safety of a President we tolerate, year after year, rather than one we honestly support. It is a rut we must climb out of now, because the longer we remain in it, the deeper it becomes.

Voting for safety is always at the expense of liberty.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Very well put.

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

Odd- you addressed my supreme court question, but you did not answer it.
tell me why ( roberts + alito ) = ( sotomayor + kagan ) what is your answer?


and a new question -
start with Joe's comment - to put these "well dones" in the Obama column


OBAMA ....................................................... ROMNEY
GM alive
Binladen dead


can you give me six "well dones" that Romney would have done or will do -
that Obama would not
Certainly, it would be self satisfying to vote for your perfect candidate - so is masturbation.
But if you are voting, not "for" yourself - but for your country, you must vote for Obama or willard.

[-] 0 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

The people of Libya thank you for the bombs you generously sent them with your vote.

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

Trayvon was from Libya ???

[-] -1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 2 years ago

First one to change the subject loses the argument.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

Is Robin Hood on the ballot?

[-] 0 points by firecloud (0) from Midlothian, TX 2 years ago

http://www.pacinlaw.org/game/ Go to this site to learn why you should revoke your voters registration card and NOT vote for anyone in any election. This is very huge and goes way back and is also completely explained. The People's Awareness Coalition has great information that if enough people do this, it will peacefully bring about real change.

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

Couldn't open the file. What was the basic message?

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Voting quotes to ponder:

"It's not the vote that counts. It's who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

or

“What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he’s free.” -Albert Camus

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

Spoken like fellows who must have lost the vote......:)

I got my own.

Vote not, want not.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by theshadowranger (20) 2 years ago

You forget that you also have to agree with that persons policies. There are honest people that you still may not agree with. Personally, I believe Ron Paul fits your description but the occupy movement disagrees with his policies.

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

Yes, I left out agreement with their policies. A candidates dedication to his constituents is the most important policy.

I would rather have a representative that did not share my views who was loyal to all of those he represented than have one who shared my views but was loyal only to those that paid for his election.

Occupy supports a wide range of political views. There is support for Ron Paul and many others.

[-] 0 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Good question. It's a "hold your nose and pick one of these stinkers!" thing, sad to say yet again.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Ummm, is not the "People he represents: a special interest group? and just how many people does it take to become a special interest group? Are not all unions special interest groups??

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

The people he represents are of many different interests. A special interest group only requires one person, with many, many dollars. Unions are special interests as long as they have something to trade.

[-] 0 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

They're the good kind of powerful lobby!

[-] -1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Right!!!!!!!

And yes, that is sarcasm.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Vote for Romney... I don't like him; Newt is far more intelligent, and I was for Palin, Pawlenty and Kane - in that order - before him, but what choice do we have?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Doesnt matter. Obama is a lock. He's bombing six nations, and giving away trillions, without a peep from anyone.

Decent looking, well spoken, semi-funny....No reason to change course. Its working perfectly for "them"...

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

I read a comment you made earlier somewhere else and meant to reply to it, but got pulled away before I could. You mentioned something about the more pertinent question being not so much 'who you gonna vote for?' , more so 'how the 1 percent stay in charge?'.

National Voter Turnout

2010 37.8%

2008 56.8

2006 37.1

2004 55.3

2002 37.0

2000 51.3

That trend does not change a whole lot going back to 1960. Uh, where is the other half of the country on election day, at Disney World? On the other hand, does it really matter under the electoral college system.

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

The other half dont bother because all they see is criminals.

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

Maybe. I have an alternate theory. I know there is some truth to it, because I'm guilty of it myself. The theory is - people don't think their vote will count for anything when they hear pundits on tv saying things like the election will come down to a few key voters in x and y battleground states. If I'm not in that state, what is my incentive to vote after hearing that?

[-] 1 points by vrum (6) 2 years ago

Congress writes the legislation. Our votes count. (Notice that voter participation is GOING UP in Presidential election years). But our voice is neither coherent, focused nor organized. So the representatives have to ignore our 'noise' and listen to the well organized special interests, lobbies and money. If we simply focus on a few central issues that strike a chord across party lines, then we can enact fundamental change to make elections fair, keep our representatives from undue influence by special interests, etc.

[-] -1 points by Craiggiedangit (99) 2 years ago

We should vote for anyone with the "proper" letter after their name! Baaa-aaah! Let's all be zombie partisan sheeple!

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

Why vote? There will never be any change unless we vote for REAL change. A vote for Obama or Romney guarantees no change.

[-] 7 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are incorrect. A vote for Romney or more importantly GOP Congressional members will assure a change, from gridlock to something much worse.

So I half agree with you. Don't vote for Romney and the crazy Tea Party/Koch crowd.

When you vote for "real" change, you have to know that you will get it. Going from bad to worse, is a fools choice. A good loser is no help.

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

Read some of my other replies.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Believe me, it doesn't help. Not voting is accepting the greater of two evils, and as GypsyKing says, voting and pursuing a better solution are not mutually exclusive.

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

I am definitely in favor of voting. Just not for the corruption each side represents.

Why is it so hard to vote for the candidate who actually shares your views? That candidate will never win even if the majority share his views, because of their fear that he won't win. The greater enemy is not the candidate on the other side, but our own fear that guarantees that the best candidate will never win.

If the founding fathers were as courageous as we are today, we would still be bowing to the Queen.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The founding fathers, did not decide on war. The people did. The town my ancestors lived in issued a declaration of independence before the "country did. Never the less their community was almost evenly split. Issuing one with 5% of the populous agreeing with the position expressed would have been totally futile and at least premature. It isn't hard to vote for someone you agree with (if you can find one), but it may be counterproductive.

[-] -1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Romney might be living in a rich person fantasy world, but how could he possibly be worse than Obama?

Maybe he'll be an ultra liberal president, and make excuses to his base like "well I had to pass that law otherwise the left would be all over me and I'd never get a second term... change takes time blah blah blah."

[-] 1 points by grt1968 (2) 2 years ago

He can finish the plans to elimate the American middle class.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

ah... crush my optimism why don't ya... 2012: Do you want the guy who lies to you, or the one who's honest, they are both gonna do the same thing anyway.

I say that still faintly hopeful Obama will start looking like a leader and amaze us all in his second term.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

All he has to do is support 30% of the positions he supported during the primaries and he will be far worse than Obama.

The 99% will be totally disenfranchised in an oligarchy worse than Russia. Oh, but that is his fantasy world.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

You never know... if Obama had supported 30% of the positions he supported during the primaries, he might be in line for a second term.

Romney could just be playing to his base when he says that stuff. Taking an anti-war stance would have just handed the nomination to Santorum... he's running republican, there are certain things he has to say. Especially with a Mormon handicap.

I think I seen something on here about him having openly gay advisers. That's not a bad start for a republican. I'm not convinced he's as frightening as people make him out to be.

As others have pointed out though, the real battle ground will be for the house...

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If Romney hadn't taken virtually every possible position on every relevant issue, and switched among them multiple times, we could be discussing issues. Instead the only thing that is relevant to Romney is the FACT that he has taken the positions and we can't seem to determine what was the thread that connects the changes together so that we can predict with any confidence what will be the determining influence on future positions.

It is the risk that his future decisions are completely unpredictable, that is the only issue that is relevant to him. Show me anyone who can make any sense of why he has changed from position to position (and back) on all of the important issues.

Unpredictability based on capriciousness is the scariest characteristic for a politician. If it was personal gain, poll numbers, a particular philosophy, a particular group's interests, etc. you might predict and try to influence that dominant factor. Now it is a crap shoot. Is there any group who really trusts him? Not that I am aware of.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hell you make Him sound like a just landed carp flopping around on the bottom of a boat.

Being kind of tough on the carp aren't you?

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I wouldn't want to beat the carp out of anyone but a pattern of facts (Etch-a-Sketch will forever have a picture of mitt next to it in the dictionary) scream for abstraction. We knew that Reagan was an actor playing the President. But Mitt isn't an actor and he is trying to play the Presidents (plural), simultaneously. When poor Mister Romney needs sympathy from the 99%, just let me know.

I will be the first to lend a hand up to an ex candidate.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

AhHahahaha.....Mitten an actor.....what a thought.....he can't even act human in front of an audience of his supporters........ever notice him make a punch-line then look startled and then come up with a smile that would scare you if it was in a bar somewhere late at night? Worse near an ally - run run screaming into the night Mitten is loose.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Just goes to show, there are convincing actors and there is, well, Mitt.

They haven't learned to put, (punch line, smile and wait until they stop laughing before you go on reading), on the Teleprompter. They are afriad he would read it verbatim.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lol LOfnL

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

As opposed to Obama who took a certain position on many issues, and then did the exact opposite... clearly these are both people who will say whatever it takes to get elected.

Don't get me wrong, I think both of them suck, and you're right "crap shoot" describes Romney nicely, but I think it also applies to Obama because you can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. They might as well be on the same ticket...

I'm just praying that some decent people get elected to the house to keep whichever of those two bozos wins the election in line....

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Well, to be fair, qualitatively, it is hard to appreciate the economic disaster that was in process when he took office. Suddenly virtually all of the available resources financially and politically were preempted just to keep the country and Europe out of a deep depression. That was a unique situation in our lifetime. imagine for a moment what his first term would have looked .like if he was following Clinton.

Bush's first term was a major distortion due to 9/11. Of course it was bigger than it should have been and the effect should have been over by his second term. That Cheney was milking the fear and paranoia, long after it made any sense. And they were continuing the off-budget war that should never have happened.

In both cases, Bush in his and Obama in his, would have had a chance to implement their promised policies. But one thing Bush never had to contend with was a Congress willing to sacrifice the country to prevent everything he was trying to do. The old approach had been, to some extent, give the president enough rope to hang himself. In Obama's case, it was prevent him from implementing any policy, good or bad, so he will be one term?

I can remember when the GOP would have called that "unAmerican."

All of that said there have been a number of things that Obama has done that either were within his control or the GOP went along with that I don't like.

But if you will check what he promised that was within his control, he has done most of them. You may not like them, but that is another story.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I think he can be forgiven for inheriting an economic disaster, but he has re-nagged on so many promises its beyond pathetic. "The first thing I'll do is bring the troops home..." Raiding dispensaries serving sick people with a medicine that ought to be legal except for the pharmaceutical lobby is another favorite of mine... Then there is his signature affixed on the NDAA... stealth fighters being deployed to the middle east.

His bankster appointments are a bit at odds with his corruption of out politics bit too..

At least in my view, blaming republicans for all his problems is convenient politically, but just doesn't jive with reality. If nothing else he has veto power, executive orders, and the ability to make political appointments that do more than maintain the status quo.

He should not be playing nice with republicans if they are unwilling to work with him. He should be saying to republicans "If that provision is not removed, the NDAA is getting a veto, and you can explain the loss in profits to your buddies in the defense industry."

or "If you keep acting like children, I'm going to use my executive power to do all these things you're not going to like, and keep doing it until you figure out how to be more reasonable."

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Nobody gets forgiven for what they inherit. They get forgiven for what they do.

If your parents leave you a burning house, you don't get forgiven. If you flood the neighborhood to put it out, damaging others houses, you might need forgiveness.

Troops, too slow, but followed Bush's agreement with Iraq. I don't use pot myself and the "War on drugs" was not promised to end, although it should. I don't like aspects of the NDAA. don't recall relevant promises? Think he got sold a bill of goods by Summers, re banks, Volker tried to straighten him out. Regulation is a mixed bag, but GOP was fighting, and still is, all of the way against them.

The ultimatims were a lot riskier to use when the the GOP have demonstrated they would happily sink the country, He eventually started playing harder ball, but should have much sooner, I agree, and it would be helpful if we got rid of the Tea Koch Party. to see what he would do in more normal circumstances.

But turning it all over to the GOP, a really bad idea

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Well then I think we can forgive him for not being able to do anything about the economic situation... although, I suspect dumping a trillion into capital projects rather than war would have helped.

In terms of the Marijuana issue.I don't smoke pot either, but I recognize what a waste of money it is to prosecute people who do (not to mention foregone tax revenue). I'm also getting very very tired of voting for politicians who want to see some very good friends (and family members) of mine put in jail. Enough is enough.

I hope he does pick it up a notch. My biggest problem with him is not that he wasn't able to do anything, its that he hasn't been trying very hard. I would love for him to do a 180, but I'm not very hopeful anymore.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Right on the re capital projects but the GOP insisted on 1/3 tax cuts and they couldn't identify enough shovel ready projects so the rest went into unemployment etc.to get it into circulation quickly. Tax and regulate is the ticket of pot.

The Dems aren't going to fix everything but, with luck, they won't destroy every single thing. This and other groups in this movement is the best hope of getting enough leverage to make real improvements.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Not true. A vote for Romney means tremendous change...... for the worse. And a boycott of the vote by the left makes Romney getting in that much more likely.

Getting real change will take time and effort. Making sure that they don't get a whole lot worse by allowing Romney in (in other words, not voting for Obama) is a tiny part of that work, about five minutes pulling a lever or filling out a ballot.

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

It's interesting that a conservative uses the identical argument to justify voting for Romney as you do for Obama. It's a stalemate that will never end unless we find a way to break it. The stalemate prevents our moving towards any goal.

If we truly want to move up stream, and they want to move down stream, we must remove this political log jam for either of us to move. Is the gain of moving up stream worth the risk of being pushed in the opposite direction?

You say no. History shows that great change only comes with great risk.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Your point stubbornly refuses to admit either that the Democratic Party has historically been the party of the people, or that the Republican Party has historically been the party of wealthy, vested-interest, or that Occupy can forge a powerful coalition with left-wing democratic groups, and therefore sway that party, while being unable to sway the Republicans at all, or to convey any vision of a way to go forward, if direct action alone cannot tip the balance.

That seems to be a lot of things to miss, and I'd like you to address those questions.

[Removed]

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

I purposely leave out parties and coalitions because we are not labels, we are people.

The log jam itself is made up of this great mass of people who don't realize that they are gradually moving downstream, a freedom lost for every foot they drift backward. Until they realize this, they will not help us move upstream, and without their help we will all continue to move down stream.

So it seems clear, our battle should be for these unaware people, not against any party.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Well, I agree with half of this, anyway. I agree with the part about uniting the people. If we can accomplish this, and by untite I mean just get say 60% behind us, then we will not need either party. But only if that 60% is willing to actually get out in the streets and protest. If not then we will need to work both within and without the current political paradigm.

[-] 5 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Good summary. I'll bet that most of those who urge not voting would if forced to admit (and we don't go in for that sort of thing) that they would vote GOP.

A bloody revolution, a la Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt has yet to produce ANY benefit for most of the people. Will it, who can tell? They were much worse off than we are and guess what. They still are. The choice for revolution is the choice to join them. No thank you. I agree with your course of action.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you, it stands to reason that:

A. What we want is change, and:

B. We should achieve that change in whatever way is least harmful to all concerned.

I would like to add that personally, I have no beef with the accumulation of wealth within reason. You can't even prevent this if you want to. It's a part of the natural order of what is in the material world. The issue is 1,200 people ruling the world with inconceivably massive fortunes.

Given the nature of that truth, I think the other 99.999999% of people can make change without resorting to upheaval.

And yet, I think getting out on the streets in protest is absolutely a necessary component of what we need to do, and the more the better.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I agree with all you say. I had proposed a way to manage the street demonstration approach months ago on this site but absent a few comments of support, it never went anywhere.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's the thing about a leaderless movement, and yet - HERE WE ARE!!!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There is a difference between an organization having leadership and A leader.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

True.

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

Let me add to the analogy. This mass of people in the middle of the river are trying to move upstream against the current of tyranny and oppression. As we move up river one part wants to travel to the right, another to the left. Both groups want to move forward. A conservative wants a fair wage just as much as a liberal. This force that moves us back down the river can only succeed if it divides our strength, one part fighting to turn to the left , the other to the right. Both sides are battling to go sideways, not forward, all the while drifting backward.

If we continue to support this strategy that results in deadlock, we all lose. Those who take our rights are not of one party, but of one mind. And that mind has one purpose, control. Once that is achieved, they will not need chains to bind us, there will be no place to escape to .

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I reject that analogy completely. Although the river does indeed move in one direction, the current is only torrentially strong on one side of that river. One can make headway one the other side, which is hardly moving.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Funny it also works out that if they do remain going forward they then are somewhere in the middle.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I agree with you entirely, but the raising of consciousness is something that can go on completely outside of any political process, or the lack thereof. And so it seems we need to avoid trapping ourselves in false dichotomys.

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

Dichotomy is a very appropriate word for the way many view politics. From Wiki: A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts, meaning it is a procedure in which a whole is divided into two parts. It is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

Sure, not just politics, but religion, philosophy, etc. all have similar groupings on various sides. If it is by education or by the natural wiring of our brains, or a mix of the two, our rigid ways of thinking prevent us from seeing the whole truth. We want it to revolve around us, when it is we who should revolve around it.

Truth can only be seen from every angle, and at every point in time. Truth has four dimensions, not two sides.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I wasn't talking about the way people view politics when I reffered to a dichotomy. By a false dichotomy, I meant the notion that we cannot work both within and without of the existing established political process. You see my meaning was very simple, while you tried to make it complex and confusing.

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

The term "false dichotomy" does not carry with it the meaning "the notion that we cannot work both within and without of the existing established political process." Your meaning did not communicate.

I misunderstood your statement "but the raising of consciousness is something that can go on completely outside of any political process" as referring to raising awareness in all non political senses. Did you mean to raise political awareness, but not necessarily during an election?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Raising conciousness is something that is both political and apolitical, because it is also spiritual. In this process we carry on here we are effectively consciousness raisers, and that process takes place outside of established political circles.

I am saying that as a movement it we can raise consciousness outside the political process and well as within, and to believe that is impossible, or that those things are mutually exclusive is a false dichotomy.

The idea I'm objecting to is the idea that if we become involved in established politics then that by definition means our motives are corrupt, or are going to be corrupted. If that is true then there is no point to this endeavor at all, because if we succeed we will have power at some point, and if we lack the will to stay true to our convictions we will then of course become corrupted.

Well, I don't believe our resolve is that weak, or that we should be made to feel that it is. That is the spiritual component of raising consciousness; that we come to see a greater good than simply our own advancement.

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

Yes, raising consciousness, raising awareness, learning new truths, progressing to the next level of understanding is at the core of Occupy. That's why they don't understand our message. They want to progress to the next level of physical wealth.

Can fighting a political battle against corruption ever succeed when the source of the corruption is not political, but moral or spiritual?

You are right that we should not become another party or power center. If Occupy became a party I would leave it in an instant.

Like your very last line.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank you. I will now take you seriously, as your interest and understanding of this movement shows you are indeed not a troll. I will still disagree with you when I don't agree with you, but I hope you will take that fact in the proper spirt, that of a debate among gentlemen and women, with the goal of reaching truth.

I only get angry, eventually, with those who simply never enter the debate at all, as you have just done, and instead simply trumpet the same message over and over, in spite of how many times it may have been refuted.

Those people are not here out of genuine motives:)

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The change we all want will not come before November. We will NOT nor should we overthrow the government of the United States. The system will not vanish. SOMEONE will occupy the White House after election day. Which of tho two do you want to allow to appoint the next generation of federal judges and the next Supreme Court judge or two? Whose legislative agenda will be SURVIVABLE while you are taking your great risks? How does pulling a lever reduce your risk taking's effectiveness to AVERT DISASTER? Do you really not see the danger? Have you not read a newspaper or, for that matter, these fora in the last several months?

How can not voting possibly have an effect? Why do you insist activism and voting be such mutually exclusive terms? It is a FALSE CHOICE. One can do BOTH.

As to you erroneous argument that both sides say the same thing and therefore neither can be believed, I have pointed out to you, several times now, the significant and consequence laden differences in their agendas. I have beseeched you to look at the records of both parties in detail and assess, for yourself, what those agendas are. No one is asking you to listen to THEIR version of the other party, but you seem to refuse to look at the record itself and make your determination. You simply repeat the tired old fallacious saw that they are both the same. Nice, meaningless generality without a shred of substance.

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

The danger of not taking risk now is that while we are drifting backward, we are losing our rights, both liberals and conservatives. If we continue to support this strategy that results in deadlock, we all lose. Those who take our rights are not of one party, but of one mind. And that mind has one purpose, control. Once that is achieved, they will not need chains to bind us, there will be no place to escape to .

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

One more time:

No one is suggesting not taking risk in terms of activism. But it is not risk simply throwing away a vote. That is simply throwing it away.

We need to build a strong viable third party to finally get some real alternatives in play. That will take years to accomplish, and the work should start now. It should start especially on the local and state level, and from there build a national party.

But while that work is going on, it is utterly foolhardy to allow the republicans to gain the White House and possibly the majority in the Senate. I agree that it would not represent change by keeping the democrats in power. But allowing the republicans to control judicial appointments, the effects of which would last the next 25 years or more, to allow them to dismantle the entire social safety net over the next next 4 years would be a disaster of epic proportions. If you want to see our rights taken away at breakneck speed and with a thoroughness that would make your head spin, allowing the republicans, not the Democrats to be in charge would accomplish that goal.

Long term strategies are not the same as short term ones. Short term ones must take today's reality into account. And that reality, whether we like it or not, is there is no third party in existence that can win the upcoming election. Ensuring even deadlock, as distasteful as that is, is FAR FAR better in the short run than allowing the floodgates of pure evil to open up. If nothing else, it would allow breathing space to work on what we really need: actual, viable, electable alternatives.

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

I would prefer instead of a third party, no parties. In fact I would banish all labels that divide us. Strength does not come from division, but from unity. As long as we are split, we are powerless.

Who votes to take away our liberties? Is it Republicans only, or Democrats as well? No, members from both sides do. Just seven U.S. Senators voted against NDAA. Three Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. The rest, both Republicans and Democrats supported it.

As long as we refuse to attack injustice, because they belong to our own political family, who vote against the very freedoms they pretend to cherish, those freedoms will continue to vanish.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You do not refuse to attack justice by allowing the those who push for the greatest injustices to gain power. Who allows our liberties to be taken away by allowing more right wing Supreme Courts to be seated?

You want to abolish all parties? Go ahead, give that a try. In the meantime the reality is that those parties remain until they are done away with in a hundred years or so, if ever.

I am as angry about the NDAA as you are. But unlike you, it is not my only concern. I am also concerned about the courts. I am also concerned about the Social safety net. I am also concerned about women's rights, and gay and lesbian rights, and the right to sue over gender discrimination, and on and on and on.

The agendas are NOT the same in both parties, despite overlap in some SELECT issues.

For the hundredth time, overlap is not equivalence. You singular focus is myopic and selective. You plan is pure fantasy in terms of current reality. The results, if enough people join your point of view, will not be less injustice, but far, far more on several orders of magnitude.

One more thing: You claim that if we are split, we are powerless. Yet you are incensed that there was near unanimity in the vote on the NDAA. So which is that you object to more. Being split or demonstrating unity? I, for one, wish there was MORE of a split on that one.

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

I attack injustice on the right or left, corruption does not depend on location.

The great quantity of injustice passed by the legislative is the source of that which the judiciary allows. Targeting the symptom does not cure the cause.

We agree on many rights that need to be preserved or enhanced. Where we part is on how to accomplish this. You say target the other party, I say target the corruption no matter where it lies.

When both parties posses equal amounts of corruption, they are equally corrupt. This is where they overlap.

Congress was united in it's vote for NDAA. They are united in accepting bribes. They are united in listening to the voices of the bankers above those of the people.

Congress is united against us. How can we support one half when the whole is our enemy?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"When both parties posses equal amounts of corruption, they are equally corrupt. This is where they overlap."

That is a false comparison. Both listen to special interests, but those interests are different from each other. One may listen to ALEC or the Koch Brothers or Exxon, the other to the Sierra Club. Locally, one may work with ALEC, the other with a food bank. The mechanism may be the same, the result and motivation is not.

The whole is not our enemy based upon a single piece, or even a dozen pieces of legislation. That is simply your blinkered view. The goals of both parties are fundamentally different.

You may attack injustice where you see it, but if you don't stem the tide of the greater injustices wrought by the republicans, you are in fact supporting it.

Now, you have consistently refused to see the differences despite there having been pointed out to you more than once. BUt, for the sake of argument, let's say everyone is wrong, and both sides are in fact identical as you assert.

What do you propose should be done about it? What would create change, right now, that will effect this whole county's present?

We have all heard your condemnations. What action do you favor that addresses what you condemn?

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

I am in favor of voting for the candidate who actually shares your views, your best candidate, not someone elses better candidate. Your best candidate will never win, even if the majority also share his views, because of their fear that he won't win. The greater enemy is not the candidate on the other side, but our own fear that guarantees that the best candidate will never win.

If the founding fathers were as courageous as we are today, we would still be bowing to the Queen.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Well, that's certainly what you favor. Ideally I favor that, too. But how would that create change, practically, right now?

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

It would break the power of the parties, if each person voted for their best candidate and held firm, instead of giving their vote and power up to the party. A party becomes strong not by the number of members, but by how much of our own power we give to them.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's a huge if and utterly unrealistic. IF pigs could fly, they would.

The numbers simply aren't there. Even if a majority of voters did what you suggest, (and there is nothing REMOTELY suggesting they would) that majority is not behind a single candidate, so even that vote will be split, and either Romney or Obama would still win. So your strategy will have accomplished nothing of value to people in this upcoming election.

I asked what your plan was for real change in the present. It does not weaken a president in office if there was a large protest vote. When Clinton was elected Perot took a sizable chink of votes in the general election. It did not diminish Clinton's power at all. It had zero effect. None. Nada. Ziltch.

The right will not cast protest votes in any real numbers. It will not cast write in votes for "ideal" candidates. It is energized in wanting Obama out. If the left does so, it will hand power to the proto-fascist party of this country. It will not weaken Romney's presidency; rather, it will simply give it to him.

Your plan has no realistic goal to make real change for people's lives right now. It it a proposal that can never work, since organized parties will always have an inherent advantage in any election as long as they are permitted by law to exist. And they will have an even smaller incentive to change, since they know that they have no one to win over: those people will cast split votes, completely ineffectively, in any upcoming election. Far from weakening any party, your strategy only serves to strengthen them and make them even less accountable to people not already a part of their party's unified base.

What you are saying is nearly word for word what those on the left said following the Chicago Convention in '68. Well, what did third party voting, independent candidate voting, etc., get us? Richard Nixon. But that's not all it got. That was the least of it. That moment strengthened the Republican party and helped it turn more rightward. Not right away; after all, we were still engaged in an unpopular war, and Nixon turned out to have committed crimes. But the seeds were planted.

How did it strengthen them? Simple: the Democrats, and the Democrats alone, were weakened. The Republican Party saw that the left had effectively abandoned the Democratic Party, so they knew they were safe to move away from the middle into more ideologically "pure" conservatism without any repercussions.

The other thing that got us was not only a weakened Democratic party, but one that had shed its left-most core. It naturally moved to the right as well. And because the party could no longer count on a truer leftist constituency, it was forced to begin pandering to a more conservative "Blue Dog" base in many districts. Ultimately it came back strong, but it did so by fielding far more conservative candidates: No more McGoverns, no more McCarthys. Carter, a complete fiscal conservative. Clinton, the most conservative Democratic president since Truman. And lastly Obama, who actually ran on a platform of comprising with the now proto-fascist Republicans.

Far from weakening both parties, the left's abandonment of the Democrats simply strengthened the right wing of both of them. Virtually everyone on the left who saw all of this understands what happened. Only the those who are too young to remember it think that your plan is viable. Only those who are older and have selective amnesia agree with your "plan".

For the rest of us, we are not eager to repeat that stupidity, that tragedy, that petulant action that gave rise to the conservative stranglehold on the country we now see and are forced to live with. Yes, we can change it, but at this point it will take an inordinate amount of sweat and perhaps blood to do it. It all could have been avoided. It is all because of the stupid, short sighted "plan" we engaged in way back when, the exact same "plan" you propose repeating. You know what Einstein's definition of insanity is, don't you? Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Far from weakening both parties, your plan will get us, not simply another Nixon, but an even further strengthening of the right, the very thing OWS came into existence to fight.

[Removed]

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

The next generation thanks you for having the balls to shake it up and do something different...

Oh wait... :>)

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You mean like Kent State? You mean like Chicago in '68?

How about taking your ignorant, ungrateful ass and fucking yourself up it.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly, these clowns are pawns in teh establishments brain washing.

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

The fear of realizing that one's entire voting career has been a sham is terrifying to many people, including many of the older people on here.

Im glad there arent too many around at Occupy.

[-] 4 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Many perhaps but not all. I may be old but I can accept reality and deal with it.

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

Hopefully their reasoning is not so rigidly set in political ideology that they can face the truth and march in a new direction.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

They can't. I've been down that road with many over the last 4 years. They simply wont vote for anyone else besides the ones they have the last 30 years. They are fully programmed.

[-] -2 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

I have been looking at Gary Johnson lately. He seems to be the closest to my personal views and has my support and my vote.

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

You prefer the closeted Koch heads?

[-] 0 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

You obviously have little to no idea who Johnson is and don't know about his record. I have seen your asinine posts here long enough to know that you suck the Dem dick as if you were Linda Lovelace. Go play your partisan crap someplace else. You are as much a part of the problem as the Reps are. Your blind loyalty to a party makes your opinion worthless as you don't have an opinion other than the one fed to you by Obama or MSNBC.

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

Yes I do. I know exactly who and what he is.

He's a (R)epelican't. That changed from (R) to an (L) on the ballot.

As an (L) he is totally beholden' to the founders of that party, a party that has already infected the (R)epelican'ts, the Democrats and many others all over the World.

You need to stop being a political child, and begin to understand how multi-pronged marketing/PR works.

PS: The founders are the Kochs and their oil corporation cohorts.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Ya but he wants to get rid of cannabis prohibition...

Obama better get on board with that idea in a fucking hurry, friends don't let friends vote for people who want to put their friends in jail.

[-] -1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

"PS: The founders are the Kochs and their oil corporation cohorts."

And the truth finally comes out. Thanks for playing, but you obviously do not believe in this nation or its founding principles. Might I suggest that you go find a nice third world shit hole that meets your expectations.

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

The (R)epelican'ts and the Neolibe(R)tarians are already doing that here, so why bother?

The (L) and (R)s are interchangeable anyway. Just cogs in the same PR machine.

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

Glad to see someone who has the courage to support who they like, not just who they think will win.

[-] 0 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

I decided a few years ago to stop with the party nonsense. I guess that was one good thing Bush did for me; he helped open my eyes to see how bad blind loyalty to a party is. The Dems today are just as bad as the Reps were under Bush. They support any and all hair brained scheme they come up with because of party loyalty, not loyalty to the nation. The people have been played again. Look at the student loan BS. The Dems set the rates to expire in the middle of an election year. I wonder why they would do something like that. Obviously, they are pandering for the youth vote and anyone who falls for it deserves to lose even more liberty than we already have lost. Hell, due process doesn't seem to exist in an Obama/Dem America anymore, but the left are fine with it as the same policies are not enacted by a Rep. Just like the hypocrisy over the Patriot Act, tax cuts, wire tapping, Gitmo and everything else sleazy in DC; each party is against it before they are for it. Anyone who supports one of these two parties is (forgive my French), a stark raving mad, fucking lunatic idiot.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Not enough of them around. The TV runs this bitch.

[-] -3 points by takim (23) 2 years ago

IF, you're a fan of fascism,......obama is the dictator for you.

[-] -3 points by 2percent (0) 2 years ago

Vote for President like you do for American Idol or Dancing With Stars, who is cool? Like you did the last time! Look at the White House response to a Q1 GDP of 2.2%, "encouraging". After a 3% Q4 GDP. Facts don't matter, spin does!