Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: who will you vote for & why

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 24, 2012, 3:41 p.m. EST by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

get the facts www.votesmart.org Don't pay any attention to corporate advertising. This organization puts out a 'Voter's Self-Defense Manual' that lists the voting record and known positions of the five leading candidates for president as well as senat and house members.

141 Comments

141 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Why vote for people that best represent you when you can vote for the people funded by corporations and banks that run propaganda all over the tv in a corrupt system of contribution based politics?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Boom!!

[-] 2 points by tomdavid55 (93) 1 year ago

If you don't vote, then the worse of 2 evils could win. Is that what you want? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY Why Don't They Care About That?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be Save This Earth

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I vote to impeach Obama so that Biden can defeat Romney.

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

Biden's like Bush's Chaney

promising to keep the US the biggest baddest military power ever

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Steering the bus without the commentary?

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

I drove a bus from wheelchairs all strapped down

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't know, I think he follows his boss, but under different circumstances, would do things differently.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

LOl, now that's a stratagem.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad you like it.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Why I am voting for Obama:

A) He is not an Austerian, and fiscal stimulus in the US is the only thing that can save the entire world at this point. The American Jobs Act is a step in the right direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzMOD-JONNU&feature=relmfu

B) Romney needs to be stopped at all costs. He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the world.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I'm voting for Roseanne because I'm sane so I can't vote for Romney and I can't vote for Obama because he admires Reagan who beat Carter and turned the country into a joke. On the other hand I might not vote at all because if the election is close and Obama loses resulting in a controversy it would play into the democrats hands simply because I voted. Maybe I'm not sane. Did that make any sense at all?

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

If you choose to vote for a third party instead of not voting at all it won't have an effect on getting one of the two mainstream politicians elected. Only if you would have voted for one of them would it be a factor. My advice, vote your conscience. The lesser of two evils is destroying this Country and our World.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

That's fucking bullshit. If enough people vote for a third candidate, then they win.

You've been brainwashed into believing what they want you to believe.

[-] 1 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

If you vote for a republicrat then YOU are part of the problem. It means you accept the status quo.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I hope there will be a recall if ether Obama or Romney are elected. We need to seriously open debates in this country, and a recall would surely facilitate that.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Maybe you're right. Support a recall no matter what.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Anyone know how that works?If their was a recall, would we get another election? I would love to see Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson on the same ticket.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

It would probably be like the 2000 election. It would come down to certain states where it was too close to call.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Don't vote. Don't consent to being a slave.

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

Not voting is consenting to be a slave to other people's opinions. Unless you plan to live on a boat in the middle of the ocean and declare yourself a sovereign state.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Wrong. We're all slaves anyhow, but enthusiastic voters are the politician's lapdogs. Not voting reveals the truly violent nature of government. Voting perpetuates the illusion that "we wanted it". If only a thousand people voted on election day, politicians couldn't even halfway claim to "represent the people". Then they'd have to quit, or they'd have to be honest about how they're going to force us into doing what they wanted anyway...and THEN people would wake up in a hurry.

Playing the game only perpetuates the illusion. Good luck with that.

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

If you're not the ruler of your own sovereign nation then you're still playing the game, you're just losing. Forfeiting. Pretending that you're opting out of the game just by not voting is silly. You're just dooming yourself to live under a government that is not responsive to your concerns because you don't vote.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

I could just copy and paste your paragraph right back at you, no matter who you are voting for. How many campaign promises did Obama keep? Bush ran on a humble foreign policy, and then we invaded iraq.

Pretending that anyone who votes is going to get what they want is just ludicrous. You're going to get 10% of what you want, and 90% pure crap. Who would gamble on those kinds of odds? It's false. And it's stupid. As I said, it's only maintaining a dreamworld. Go back to sleep, good citizen!

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

I agree with this:

Pretending that anyone who votes is going to get what they want is just ludicrous.

But at the same time, pretending that anyone who doesn't vote is somehow transcending the system is also ludicrous.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Transcending? It's merely one potential step to take to meaningfully FIX the system. Unless you believe that more of the same thing would continue to get a different result?

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

How is refusing to participate going to fix the system? I'm trying to follow your logic. I personally think that you're just rationalizing laziness.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Okay, I'll try and explain it again.

Politics operates under the veil that politicians "represent us", when they clearly do not. Voting maintains the illusion that people "consent" to be represented. By voting, it legitimizes the authority of the rulers to "represent us", meanwhile, representing themselves and their moneyed friends.

If people quit voting, then there would be no illusion of legitimization. Instead of prattling about how it's in Americas interest, they couldn't say that, because people wouldn't have voted for them. Then they would have to say "You're doing what we say because we have guns." Their true colors would be exposed.

What I would advocate is much like Ghandi did in India. He made the British choose between looking legitimate, and using violence against India. They couldn't do both...they had to give one up, so they gave up violence and left to protect their legitimate, civilized image.

The problem that people do not seem to understand is that many of the problems are SYSTEMATIC. This means that EVEN PARTICIPATING will never FIX THE SYSTEM, because the PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY THE SYSTEM. The only way to fix many of the problems we face is to work outside the system. Working within the system is exactly what established interests want, because it keeps the system going. This has been proven over and over, from Lysander Spooner, Leo Tolstoy, to many great minds of the present. Working with the system to fix the system is the biggest trap.

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

Your vision could only succeed if everybody refused to vote. That isn't going to happen because the people who don't participate in your boycott will end up with more control. Pretty simple concept from game theory.

You've heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?

Two men are arrested, but the police do not have enough information for a conviction. The police separate the two men, and offer both the same deal: if one testifies against his partner (defects/betrays), and the other remains silent (cooperates with/assists his partner), the betrayer goes free and the one that remains silent gets a one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail on a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept secret from his partner. What should they do? If it is assumed that each player is only concerned with lessening his own time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. The sole concern of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the optimal decision for each is to betray the other, even though they would be better off if they both cooperated.

You're saying that we would all be better off if none of us participated, just like the two prisoners would be better off if neither betrayed the other. But there is a conflict between the interest of the collective and the interest of the individual.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Yep. Except it's not just a short prison term. The corrupt system is perpetuating itself until it cannibalizes everything.

Let me give you an analogy. Let's say you had a tumor. Tumors grow larger and larger, sucking the resources from the host body, until they kill it. Let's say you go to a doctor. The doctor says, "Look, this tumor is bad, I won't lie, it's growing out of control. What we need to do is convince the tumor to just grow into another kidney. Then it'll grow into something positive for you!"

Are you going to allow this doctor to treat you?

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

A short prison term. I think that you've missed the point of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

I understand the premise, but it's false. We can communicate, like we are doing now. And it's not just some short term options. It's begin moving toward something different, or continue with the same system that has been perpetuating itself for hundreds of years.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

After seeing the end of the Packers-Seahawks game I'm leaning heavily towards not voting. It's obvious the home team (incumbent) is going to win the elction.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

The election just perpetuates the illusion of free choice. I mean, if we really had free choice, why wouldn't all the debates have 5+ candidates? Nope, just two. The game IS rigged. And if everyone refused to play, they would have to refuse to pretend to do it for our best interest, because it would be obvious.

The sooner the illusion is over, the better for everyone, and the quickest way to bring that about is to stop voting.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I lost interest in voting with Reagan. I voted in 2000 and 2008. 2010 too. Think I'll pass on this one.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

It seems the BS has reached a saturation point and not voting is definitely an option. I don't vote most of the time.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

good for you. That makes two of us.

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

I am voting for Obama because Romney scares me and I dont have the balls to make a stand.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I decide who to vote for on voting day. It depends on my mood, who's been rude to me lately, etc....

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Vote for Darren Johnson.

The third candidate.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

she's not on the voteeasy but if you click on 'elections & candidates' and then scroll down and click on '2012 presidential' you will see a whole list of candidates. You can click on Roseanne and it will give you a lot of information on her.

[-] 1 points by LibertyNow (10) 1 year ago

The lesser of two evils. Someone who has tons of leadership experience and can turn things around by acting like a responsible steward. Hopefully.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I will vote for candidates who are ELECTABLE and mostly are on the side of the 99% - based on my hundreds of hours of research and paying attention for the last 30 years
FYI -- there is no "recall" of a president

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Impeachment works as well, it depends on the circumstances. The point is to chalenge the authority of a candidate that does not represent the majority of the public.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

why do YOU [ JDM ] think that they don't represent the majority of the public?

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

they both have under 50% on all of the polls...are you not paying attention? Besides how much smaller would that percentage be if everyone wasn't so afraid of the other party.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Obama is now at 53% check Real Clear Politics or 538

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

great

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

They are all already bought out for the next session, both candidates at every important position.

But it wont stop the sheep from defending them like they actually know them or something.

[-] -1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

Failure to represent the majority is not a reason for impeachment. The Constitution provides for removal for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors :)

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Treason we will hold for the verdict.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I'll agree with that.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

This country needs a serious debate. Anyone know if any third partys will be aloud national debates? On what used to be called "the public airwaves"?

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I was looking at the manual I received in the mail when I made the post. I just looked at the web sight and low and behold Rocky was on there, along with a bunch of people I'd never heard of. The web sight is much more comprehensive than the paper manual. But still for ease of use and reference I would recommend the paper manual. It has some nice charts.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I know I will hear a lot of crap for this response but it's honest. I have to face it. It comes down to survival in the case of my family and that's how I will vote.

Obama is more of the same failed spending crap that hasn't worked but instead padded the pockets of his contributors. I can't afford 4 more years of uncertainty and sinking more into poverty. I don't want to see my family's business close down which is what we are on the verge of. We've already had to lay everyone off and are looking to close doors depending on this election. I'm tired of seeing people I care about lose everything. If we close doors, there's not much chance of me finding work at my age in this environment.

The one smart thing I've heard and I can agree with is opening up energy in all forms to all states which will drastically turn around the economy by adding more jobs in all aspects of energy as well as bringing the price of everything down which will in turn drive up demand. It makes sense and should have a rather immediate effect especially in the speculative markets that will drive gas prices down dramatically and quickly. I have to vote for jobs and Romney's "all of the above" energy policy will do that. I'm not a Romney supporter and had planned to vote third party on principle but my family won't survive another term with this incompetent dishonest president who has failed us in every way. And I don't like the direction he's taking us.

I don't plan on giving up on what I think are core issues to the financial industry which are reinstating Glass Steagle, repeal of Community Reinvestment Act (subprime loans) and getting rid of the Fed but these things won't happen in the next month. The election will. We need jobs first. The congressional races will have more of an impact on the financial issues I listed so I will continue to work on getting people to petition those state and local candidates for the changes I want to see. It's easier to influence them.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I would like to know where you get your info about Romney's "all of the above" energy policy? Last I heard he was trying to kill everything except for big oil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/romney-touts-energy-plan-_n_1912247.html

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

That's the problem. "Everything you've heard" is only what the state run media wants you to hear and the Huffington post is as in the tank for Obama as the rest of them. Rather than listening to the state run media for my information, I thought I would try a novel approach and see what the candidate himself has on his platform. I've attached the link. I've also listened to some speeches where he and Ryan have said "all of the above" in their approach to energy. I've been trying to research as much as I can and not rely on propaganda. I realize that candidates can't be trusted but since Obama has no energy plan and he's running my life into the ground and since common sense says that energy will go far to help the economy, I have to go with my brain on this one and not necessarily my principles.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

The last bullet point in his plan: • Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies. Mitt will promote innovation by focusing the federal government on the job it does best – research and development – and will eliminate any barriers that might prevent new energy technologies from succeeding on their own merits. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/paul-ryan-sets-his-sights-on-obama/2012/08/14/964162ca-e5f0-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_blog.html

From the link above, "First, Ryan will deliver remarks on the theme of energy independence at a morning rally in Lakewood, Colo. There, he is expected to make the case that, if elected, he and running mate Mitt Romney “will pursue an all-of-the-above energy approach that will create more jobs and help put us on a path toward energy independence,” according to a campaign aide who requested anonymity to preview the remarks."

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here that RoMoney supports alternative energy, especially when your two sources are his own web page and the Washington Post. Good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I started off my initial post responding to the question of who I would vote for and why. I have been pushing for us to vote our principals (3rd party) but this time, principles won't be enough for me. I have too much to lose for myself and my family. If Obama wins, I will lose everything I have worked my life for and spent my life building for my family. He offers no way out of this crisis, only more of the same policies that have done more to hurt my family than to help it. He has also furthered the corruption in his administration between the govt and wall street especially in regards to Goldman Sachs and others. I cannot vote for him.

Voting for Romney is the only hope I have to save my business and my home. Voting 3rd party will re-elect Obama and I can't do that. I also think that Romney's energy plan will ignite the economy and all aspects of it by unleashing oil and gas. Whether he does anything for alternatives, doesn't matter at this moment in time. Alternatives will grow as the market demands it. But unleashing energy at this moment is what businesses need at this time. I'm just trying to survive and since I'm close to retirement and I've worked all my life for what I have and what I have built, I don't want to lose it now. Voting for Obama will guarantee my loss of my business and my home. I see no other option.

The things we have all been fighting for has gone nowhere. Everyone has lost sight of the initial fight. I thought we were fighting against the banks and govt corruption. I haven't given up on any of that but at this moment, survival for me and my family is most important. Nothing will happen in the next months on the corruption front but I refuse to lose everything to a corrupt president that has furthered the agendas of Goldman Sachs and others and that has done nothing to help anyone but his cronies in the last 3 1/2 years. I'll take my chances on the opponent who at least offers something that makes sense.

As far as quoting his website and the Post, you said, you "would like to know where you get your info about Romney's "all of the above" energy policy? Last I heard he was trying to kill everything except for big oil." You're quoting the Huffington Post, a state run propaganda publication. And you put your faith in that? I was answering your question. Sorry it didn't meet your standard. At least I looked into the candidates and didn't accept the word of every democrat talking point. I also said that we can't trust politicians and I don't. I don't go into this blindly but the choice between poverty and prosperity is in front of our face and I choose prosperity.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

In what way, shape or form is the Huffington Post "state run"? lmao

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

The majority of the media is in the tank for Obama, therefore state run. The Huffington Post is one of them.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

So, anyone who supports an incumbent is "state run"? You are revealing yourself as a true Man of Letters. Kudos to you.

[-] 2 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

A publication that doesn't ask the president any tough questions on anything or question any policies or even vet him is "state run media." Can you remember Obama being asked anything tough by the Huffington Post or any of the networks like why do all his economic advisors come from Goldman Sachs including his Treasury Secretary and yet GS charges get dropped and he receives huge campaign donations from them. Is there a corruption there?

Why have none of these news outlets reported that the crowd that attacked the embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and others were chanting "Obama, Obama, we are all Usama." That these attacks have more to do with him politicizing the killing of bin Laden than a stupid movie trailer.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I understand about doing whats best for yourself and your family. But will you and your family be living downstream from one of the Koch bro.'s facilities? Will you and your family be drinking the water from polluted wells after all the fracking and pipelines are put in place. Will you and your family be amongst those killed in the war for oil? I hope you and your family are out voted.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

As I said, I have to vote to save my family this time and against principle. If I lose everything at my age, there is no coming back for me. These things you bring up will have to be an ongoing fight no matter who is elected but I see no choice for my family at this time. We've had a year of protest to try to work to fix what we all know is wrong with the current status quo, but I don't see anything being done. Just a lot of talk but no real action. And this website has become more of a political arm for the current powers in office and his cronies rather than a way forward. I can't vote to keep the current politicians in office on any level including congress. I will vote against every incumbent no matter the party as I need real change to help the economy whatever that ends up being. The economy is the most important thing right now for me and all Americans and until we get that back on track, none of the other issues will matter. If our country collapses, their will be no future for anyone that is not "elite". Then the "elite" will run rampant over the rest of us as more of us become more dependent on the government. The more dependent we become the more liberty we lose and none of our other issues will go anywhere.

Sometimes there comes a point where your very survival depends on a single choice. It's a hard choice to make but I see no other way at this time.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Romney won't help you. His entire carrear has been about increasing the wealth of the one percent at the expense of the middle class. If you want change vote for a third party and scare who ever gets elected into being more responsive to the public. Those in power are depending on us to be too afraid to vote for anyone other than their two puppets. Its time to change the rules of the game.

[-] 1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I understand that and had planned to vote 3rd party until recent events make that impossible because to vote 3rd party this time will keep Obama in office and I won't survive 4 more years of that. Regardless of who Romney helps, the one thing I know he will do is to unleash energy which will ignite the economy and drop energy prices especially with speculators that will drive the price down immediately, thereby dropping all prices and consumers will have more money to spend. I need an immediate boost and I see that as the only option I have.

I will continue to fight the status quo and "scare whoever gets elected into being more responsive to the public" every way I can on every other level of government but I can't risk my family, my business and my home this time. Representatives will be easier to influence on state and district levels and I will continue to work on my representatives there.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

The process seems rigged to me. The next president will be a democrat of republican because that's what money dictates. During campaigns they talk hard left or right then run for the middle when elected. We can't figure out what they're talking about or signing because so many are lawyers. It's become a farce.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Its a pupet show. The things that they talk about are not the things they intend to do. Both sides have been working towards the same goles for a long time now. We cannot survive much more party consent.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." -Lysander Spooner.

I won't be voting, showing my non-consent to being a slave.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I urge you to show your non consent by taking your percentage away from the establishment. If you don't vote, they get to clame you as their own.

[-] -2 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

wrong. If I don't vote they can't claim that I consented to anything, and then their evil and violence is revealed. Did the Indians vote the British out of India? No, they used non-violent resistance. Did the colonies vote their way to independence from the british? Nope. Have we ever voted our way to a smaller government? Nope again. Slavery wasn't ended by a vote. The civil rights movement didn't happen with a vote. NOTHING significant in our history has happened with a vote. You're only lying to yourself with flaccid logic if you think voting matters.

Sorry, all of history is going to fly in the face of the effectiveness of voting. Voting is what those in power WANT. And so long as people keep giving it to them, they'll keep getting it in the ass in return.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

no, what those in power want is to have what you are already willing to give them. To have complete and utter control with out having to worry about the public vote. You should learn a little about history if you don't think having a vote improves the condition of the populous. You are an affront to all who have died for freedom.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

As you just said, "died for freedom". THOSE are the people who got more freedoms for everyone else. The ones who DID SOMETHING about their beliefs. Not the clowns who think 5 minutes in a ballot box makes a difference.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I don't necessarily disagree with that statement...I would just say that 5 minutes in a ballot box won't hert, and our forefathers deserve that much respect.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

You'd be right, except that people delude themselves into thinking that it DOES SOMETHING, when it doesn't. The country wasn't created with a vote, or a Constitution, or any number of other superfluous things we attribute to it. It was created by the spirit, sweat, and blood of the people who were willing to stand up for their rights.

If anyone today thinks that we're going to get anywhere without action, they're only lying to themselves, as I said, all of history stands contrary to the effectiveness of the ballot box.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

That may all be true at the federal level but at the local and often the state level voting can definitely effect your daily life.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Just imagine if nobody voted at the state and local level? No local tyrants to make a bunch of bureaucracy stand in the way of neighbors organizing a community! Just you and your neighbors getting things done together! THAT would affect your life, and in a much more significant way than endorsing government middlemen, then begging them for table scraps.

[-] 0 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

The voting public is already a minority in this country. Those in power would love it if that number was reduced to just 10% or so.
Look Thoreau, a majority of americans acros the bord have and always will suport the people of this great nation. If bullets flew the mater would be decisive. Polotics is what you do when your not shooting people. Do you want to engage in a political discussion or not?

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

I'm glad you brought this up. It's been said that war is merely politics by other means, and politics is just economics by other means. Do you understand?

This means that politics is a substitute for getting along VOLUNTARILY. Politics is violence.

If you want to be involved in trying to use violence against your neighbors (whom you disagree with), go for it. But it doesn't change the fact that you're endorsing a violence society.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Polotics is when two people speak. By its nature it is voluntary. Violence is war.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

You're only lying to yourself. If the President raises taxes, is it voluntary? Or if people try to voluntarily not pay taxes, as peacefully as they can, will they be visited by guys with guns and locked up in prison? Surely you're smarter than that.

[-] 4 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

ya well, your position serves no purpose other than to further erode democracy and play right into the hands of the one percent. I don't wish you any luck with that.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I suspect he takes a great deal of pride in being absolutely stupid.

[-] -3 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

You're right. Political change is made through internet forums and voting. Dream on, my friend.

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

we all live in the same physical world that allows us to interact

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

As long as you engage in politics its voluntary. When you stop engaging and make a stand it is war. Gandhi was a master at nonviolent warfare. If that is your calling I chalenge you to sit infront of the capital with no food or water until you have won. But so long as you prefer to be comfortable, the least you could do is engage in the political discussion. The hearing of as many voices as possible is the heart of the vote. Don't break my heart :)

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

You're living in a fantasy land. Good luck with that.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There ya go. If only everyone was this fuckin smart, the whole nation would turn around!!

The Republican Establishment could have nominated Harry Reid and you dumb fucks would vote for him.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I have bad news for you... I hate Republicans, too. So where does that leave me? What president represents me? Has there ever been a President that represents 'me'? Or my family, or our interests??? Ever?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

check out Adams Lincoln TR FDR

[-] 0 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

And yet you suport Romney? I have respect for conservatives who want to protect small businesses and our liberties as a free nation, but Romney? Are you f'n kidding me? Talk about impoverishing Americans to third world nations, he's the poster boy.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Nope, I am not fuckin' kidding you.

Well, think of it this way... if he's President he'll be conducting less personal business to third world nations, right? So that's a positive and we're cool.

I'm not a conservative, either... I'm a socially liberal paleo-conservative (think evolutionary genetics here). To self describe in such a manner, you might be inclined to think there has never been another quite like me (Kid Rock). But I tend to think that Everyone is just like me.

In my opinion, Obama has ruled contrary to American interests on virtually every issue; why the f'ck would I vote for him?

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I wouldn't vote for Obama ether. As I've said before, the only sain choice we can make at this point is to try and take enough percentage points away from both partys in order to chalenge their legitimacy to lead.

[-] 2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I agree...

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by poindexter (8) 1 year ago

Probably Romney, let's face it, the last four years have been awful. I want better control for the 99% but there has to be a country to control and Obama is driving it off a cliff. Let's let these republicans take the heat for doing what is needed and them throw them out when things have stabilized a bit.

[-] -1 points by SingleVoice (158) 1 year ago

I have to agree with you. It comes down to survival in the case of my family and that's how I will vote.

Obama is more of the same failed spending policies that haven't worked but rather padded the pockets of his contributors. I can't afford 4 more years of uncertainty and sinking more into poverty. I don't want to see my family's business close down which is what we are on the verge of. We've already had to lay everyone off and are looking to close doors depending on this election. I'm tired of seeing people I care about lose everything including my family. If we close doors, there's not much chance of me finding work at my age in this environment.

The one smart thing I've heard and I can agree with is opening up energy in all forms to all states which will drastically turn around the economy by adding more jobs in energy as well as bringing the price of everything down which will in turn drive up demand. It makes sense. I have to vote for jobs and Romney's "all of the above" energy policy will do that. I'm not a Romney supporter and had planned to vote third party on principle but my family won't survive another term with this incompetent dishonest president.

I don't plan on giving up on what I think are core issues to the financial industry which are reinstating Glass Steagle, repeal of Community Reinvestment Act (subprime loans) and getting rid of the Fed but these things won't happen in the next month. The election will. We need jobs first.

[-] -3 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

I am voting for Barack Obama because I am a liberal.

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Obama is not a liberal. Obama is a centrist democrat that supports dropping bombs in multiple countries, spying on American citizens, a monetary system that fosters the 1%, drug laws that imprison more nonviolent citizens than any country in the world, and is the first president to have an administration file and win an appeal to continue the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

Real liberals do not support this crap.

Any downvoters should try and point out an area here that is factually inaccurate.

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Obama is a neoliberal who throws a few crumbs on social wedge issues to the progressives, imo.

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

Id say he's closer to a neocon than a neoliberal.

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

What distinction do you make between those two terms?

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

I guess everyone's view is different, they arent exactly technical terms.

I always go on neocons using war as their main weapon, and neolibs using economics as their main weapons. The 6 nations bombed in 4 years makes me lean towards the former.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

It can be a fine line. The quote from the article below gives an idea why I consider Obama to be neoliberal.
"Neoliberals pretend to be concerned about inequities in the distribution of income and wealth. Neoconservatives make it abundantly clear that they couldn’t care less" http://vermontrepublic.org/neoliberalism-neoconservatism-without-a-smirk

[-] -2 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

The thing you said about the monetary system is factually incorrect, its not the fed's fault that the stimulus wasn't large enough to get the velocity of money moving.

// drug laws that imprison more nonviolent citizens// Obama never created that precedent.

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

The Fed gives trillions to banks. In 2008 alone they gave a trillion to Bank of America.

Source - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

That's an example of what I'm talking about. Not the stimulus package.

Obama supports the drug laws and has done ZERO to oppose them as president. In fact his administration is cracking down harder on medical marijuana and state's rights dispensaries.

one of many sources on this issue - http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-marijuana

When asked if marijuana should be illegal he said "yes"

he is also the sitting president of a growing spy network going through American citizen's electronic messages and not only is he the sitting president.... he continually voted in favor of legislation that creates this illegal search and seizure of information.

[-] 0 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

were those trillions of dollars bailout loans?

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

Read the link to the GAO audit and discover all the fun information about the relationship between the Federal Reserve and the banks.

[-] 0 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

well out of principle I agree with the bailout loans, and in regards to medical marijuana I am really not passionate about the issue. Its not like medical marijuana thing is a life saver.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

For some people it actually is.

And giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street is not a solution.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

I feel like the individuals who argue for or against medical marijuana are often to biased.

//And giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street is not a solution.// That is a simple way of looking at things. Lets just put it this way....Remeber what happened when George Bush hesitated in bailing out bear Sterns because he wanted the market to handle it?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

People arguing against marijuana are ignorant and they often support laws that create crimes against humanity. No person should be in prison for choosing to inhale something or grow a plant that they enjoy and that harms no one else. Please look into research before you claim "bias"

The worst thing marijuana does is smell skunky. Drug laws create a black market which foster gang activity. They put non-violent people in jail. And these anti-drug laws contribute to what many people call the new jim crow due to it's massive incarceration of black people.

[-] -1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

Many of the individuals whom argue for the legalization of marjuana often overstate the bennefits, and neglect the long and short term issues( i.e the effects on mental health and so forth). Finally harsh drug laws were often constructed in the 80's as america begin to move towards the crime control model. It was only in the late 90's did states begin to qeustion such policies, but by then states had already become overburdened with the failure of private prisons, and the increasing prison population.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Again giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street is not a solution.

What's changed? How long will the loan last? If you're bleeding out, the tissues will only seep up the blood. It doesn't stop the wound from bleeding.

[-] 0 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

most if not all of the loans have been paid back. Which isn't suprising. for example when the tressury department bailed out mexico in the mid 90's not only did they help to stabelize the economy in mexico, but they also made a profit from it and were able to use the money to help add to the clinton surplus even further.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You're missing the meat on the bone. We need to put back in place regulations that help prevent the catastrophes.

We also need a reform on monetary policy. Currently it's unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people.

[-] 1 points by hazencage (58) 1 year ago

we have put back some regulations but we dont have enough democrats in the senate to push for more progressive regulation.

//Currently it's unlimited resources for the banks and nothing for the people.// the people got the stimulus but we had to compromise so the stimulus in terms of direct spending wasn't enough.

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

or perhaps who got the money of stimulus ?

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

"Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision." - Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_are_useless_20091206//

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

Looking at the third party votes of the past century, I'd say the majority of Americans are as useless as you believe liberals to be. But i understand the human tendency to point fingers to make one feel better about his place in the world.

Let me pose a question: do you believe that if we were a Democracy and not a Republic during 9/11, we would have done things differently? Sadly, I believe not.

But lets continue to blame the politicians for our tendencies to Rally around the flag. After all, we all like to feel good about our selves.

The people fighting the wars are more to blame than the people turning a blind eye to them.

[-] 3 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I'm not blaming the politicians and neither is Hedges. As he says at the end of the article linked above,

"here we are again, begging Obama to be Obama. He is Obama. Obama is not the problem. We are."

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I have to be honest and say, all I did was react to your quote without reading the article. It was a total reaction to the quote, but I'll read it now that I'm home from work. It sounds like Hedges has hit the nail on the head once more.

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Answer: If we were not so heavily under the influence of the neocon leadership then there is a good chance that 9/11 would never have occurred.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

please explain the WTC bombing by muslims in 1993 , in which people were murdered. clinton was the president at that time.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Thats the point. There was plenty of evidence that al-qaeda was a serious threat before 9/11. But the neocons wanted to focas on sodom and ignored threats from al-qaeda.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

it was clinton , a democrat that prosecuted the feb. 1993 muslim bomb atttack on the WTC as a criminal offense.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

and when Clinton turned the office over to Bush, he warned him of al-qaeda. But Bush wanted revenge for sadoms' attempt on his fathers life, so he ignored the intelligence and invaded Iraq.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

while in office,clinton ws offered bin laden ( who was on the FBI's most wanted list) 3 times, he wasnt interested. by treating the 1993 bombing as a criminal ofense, it emboldned the muslims, who ( rightly) perceived clintons weakness as a leader.

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

20-20 hind sight is nice isn't it.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

it isnt 20/20,.......its fact , a criminal prosecution? muslims laughed at clinton over this. muslims respect to strength , they are emboldened by weakness. clinton was weak. foreign countries offered up bin laden. three times clinton refused bin laden who was on the FBI most wanted list ( it wasnt for parking tickets). how dumb do you have to have not taken bin laden into custody?

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

go preach to your choir, you neocon terrorist.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

can you refute what i posted about clinton and bin laden? give facts, not opinion.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I don't have too. I think he did a great job. It's your people who through this country down the drain. Take a long look in the mirror.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

clinton , dodd-frank, janet reno,.................THREW this country away by forcing banks to give mortgages to people that were unqualified, and did have to provide income verification.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1271) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Hedges knows what's going on. The middle class won't dissappear completely but it will be a fraction of what it was and it won't be a force politically. That's why both dems and repubs are talking about it now, they're pandering to something that will barely exist. They love BS.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you're voting for obama because you are uninformed.ignorance can be overcome, stupid is forever.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20504) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

linguistically that sentence doesn't even make sense.

[-] 3 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Same can be said for a vote for Romney.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you just proved that you're ignorant. do your own research to prove you're not stupid.

[-] 5 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

Half of your comments contest the intelligence of others but the other half show a lack of your own. Overcompensate much?