Why I won't be voting for Obama- Signy by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

13) Oh, and he should have ended the war on (some) drugs. 40 years, and it's STILL failing! But it's filled our jails...

14) And NOW, he's hustling big money from Wall Street for his campaign. But he still thinks he's going to carry to "little guy" vote?

---------------------

On the plus side, I'll give him credit for ending DADT and extending unemployment.

Still, not nearly enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:06 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Small bone of contention:

Quote:
4) Under Bush, we were involved in two wars. Under Obama, we're now involved in three.

You mean FIVE. Iraq (still there!), Afghanistan (more there than ever!), Pakistan (not "officially" there), Libya ("No boots on the ground"), and now Yemen ("Look over there! It's a bird - it's a plane - it's an unmanned hunter/killer drone!").

The Nobel Committee would like to have a word or five: "We. Want. Our. Prize. Back. FUCKER." Okay, that's six words.

Hey, whattaya know - I never voted for a Clinton, either! Not a one of 'em.

Also, you left something out that I feel is kind of important. Obama said he'd protect whistleblowers and wanted transparency. He lied. He's gone after whistleblowers and classified more shit than even Nixon could have dreamed of! Obama has launched more whistleblower investigations than all other Presidents combined, currently going after no less than five whistleblowers for having the gall to point out the illegal and corrupt practices of the government.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, indeed.

For those who think... "But if we don't vote for Obama it could be worse!" I have to ask... how?

Obama steps to the right. Congress steps further to the right. Obama steps more to the right. All Obama is doing is ameliorating problems caused by his own underlying policies, paying both sides so he can stay "in the middle" (which is defined by some weird triangulation of big money, popular votes, and where the Congress is now.) In order to change things we have to move one of the corners of the triangle.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Bush > Obama

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 8:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That's why you should vote for him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 8:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's why you should vote for him.

I would if i could, given the 2 choices.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:33 AM

KWICKO

Obama's a disappointment. Bush was a disaster. Obama's biggest problem as far as progressives are concerned is that he isn't ENDING the Bush policies. But never forget who STARTED those policies. The end of the Republic began in earnest with Dubya, who came right out and said he wanted to be a dictator.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:40 AM

Sig

I applaud your stance. Vote socialist. I disagree with socialism, but you don't. The only way you're going to get a better caliber of democrat is to protest vote (Hey, it's what I do, sometimes, I even vote for the socialist.) But I do it to send a message.

Each season, the fear mongers come out and say "you must support us, regardless of how much we suck, because the ooh scary evil other side will win."

Reality check. Both sides are scary and evil. And they'll remain so until we kick their asses and pull them back in line.

Carter was a halfway decent democrat, but he was spying on americans and funding secret revolutions just like reagan. Clinton was much more of the same, and Obama's shaping up to be more. What's happening to our party is what happened to the GOP with Reagan fever: It ended in Bush.

The way I look at it, the only way your vote is counted is if it's a protest vote. Think about it:

What would happen if it were *really* so close that your vote counted?

First, you'd have to be the key swing state where the points mattered. Only one of the 50 states will be in this position in the election, and it is never New York, and it's never Texas, and I don't remember where you're from, but it's always going to be one of those 50/50 states (NC, OH, FL, etc.) There might 8 or 10.

Now, if that *does* happen, then lets say it gets so close that they start counting votes.

One side will cheat. Whoever has the most thugs (Kennedy in Illinois, Bush in OH and FL)

And if that doesn't decide it, someone will call in the Supreme Court to vote on it.

So, a vote for a major party candidate in the general is never going to be counted.

However, a vote for a third party candidate sends the message "We're losing some of our loyal base on this issue" and that pulls the party back. (This is part of why there's such a christian pandering on the right. They lost a percent or two to some christian candidates.) Notice they didn't pander really to Ross Perot. A serious third party challenger is a threat (Same with Dems and Nader.) They just attack.

So, that vote becomes, sadly, a one issue vote, but it's better than absolutely no vote, which is what we get by default.

In the last NY election I voted for the Green candidate, Howie Hawkins, an avowed socialist. I disagree with Hawkins on just about everything. I solidly agree with Black Panther candidate Charles Barron on just about everything. But I voted green, because I knew how the protest vote would be counted. Both of them agreed with me on the environment, but Green would send the message "Dems, you've been sucking on this issue." the Panther's freedom party sends the message "Dems, you're losing the black vote." That wasn't the message I was trying to send. I wanted to send "you're losing the Green vote."

Oh, Obama waffled on torture, and then he endorsed "Extraordinary Rendition" openly, which is the govt's official term for "Outsourcing Torture."

Personally, I think the Osama thing was a stunt. Jessica Lynch was a stunt, Pat Tillman was a stunt. These stunts make leaders plummet in my opinion because they assume we are stupid, and they are not only willing to lie to us straight faced, but they're willing to kill people to make their lies seem real. That takes a special class of person.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bush > Obama

Bush=Obama || Bush=~Obama

(more or less)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Obama's a disappointment. Bush was a disaster. Obama's biggest problem as far as progressives are concerned is that he isn't ENDING the Bush policies. But never forget who STARTED those policies. The end of the Republic began in earnest with Dubya, who came right out and said he wanted to be a dictator.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

Mike,

It's worth looking up. A lot of the policies were started by Clinton. Some were started by Obama himself. Some were started by Bush 41, Reagan or Carter.

Very few of the policies we abhor are older than that, because that's when the neocons and neolibs really got into govt and started making decisions. They were creeping in under Nixon, more under Ford, but they really got to make some policy under Carter.

There are three points here:

1) The real villains are behind the curtain, and they ain't changed

2) The presidents all suck, because they're tools of their secret gnomes

3) We associate non Bush policies with Bush because he was an idiot, moreover, Cheney was an idiot, and so they failed to hide them.

I was frankly astonished when Bush would say about some policy or other "But Clinton did it" and I would look it up and say "Huh, he did."

I knew enough to read through the lines and catch some foreign press to find out about massive deaths in Clinton's wars, etc. but it wasn't until the days of wikipedia and google that I learned that domestic wiretapping, outsourcing torture and Halliburton no bid contracts to control our military were all *Clinton* policies, continued.

Sure, Bush added a few: Mostly he is to blame for the expansion of radical mining, and the war in Iraq. Bush never really putt he effort to turning Afghanistan into a full scale war, it was more like Obama's efforts in Libya, Yemen, and Syria, but Obama's Afghan-Pakistani conflict is a serious Vietnam situation.

Basically, each president builds on the bad precedence of the previous bad presidents and expands them.

How did people miss this one:

Homeland Security.

Bush created a monstrosity of 300,000 Federal police to control the American people. Obama has upscaled that to one million. Now they're in your face everywhere.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 3:12 PM

HARDWARE

Vote Cthullhu. Why vote for the LESSER of two evils?

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The Tea Party pulled the GOP to the right, Mike. Before them was the Xtian conservative movement. They did that by not being afraid of pulling the GOP apart, which they did to some extent. If we keep waltzing with "centrist" Dems we'll be waltzed right off a cliff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:42 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Obama was and still is a better choice than McCain. McCain would have been Bush on steroids.

I didn't think that Obama would be so contemptuous of his base. But maybe Obama is now courting a different base (besides the corporations that is). Maybe he is courting republicans - people who aren't either democrats or the Tea Party. That would be something.

I will once again be voting for the lesser of two evils - whoever it turns out to be.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2011 8:20 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

This is clearly not the popular opinion here, but I will be voting for Obama again, for one simple reason. I am a student. I will be a student for approximately the next decade. Obama made some promises about giving money to students, a main reason I voted for him, and somewhere along the lines there were some quiet little tax laws passed that gave me the biggest tax refunds I've ever seen, for being a student. I've also gotten better loans and more grants. (it is a selfish reason, and I know that)
I do have a couple other reasons, but that's my big one. I can't help it. I'm broke and poor and studentish.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Tea Party pulled the GOP to the right, Mike. Before them was the Xtian conservative movement. They did that by not being afraid of pulling the GOP apart, which they did to some extent. If we keep waltzing with "centrist" Dems we'll be waltzed right off a cliff.

Once again, I'm in complete agreement. I don't know how to define left and right here, but yes, it's not about whether McCain is a better choice than Obama. We don't get to make that choice. The choice we get to make is whether or not we can bend our own political allies to the will of its supporters, namely, us.

PR

Obama will win whether you vote for him or not, barring the unforseen. That's not really the point. To quote the Rev. Al Sharpton: It's not who is in DC that matters, it's *what* is in DC. This is about policy, not personality.

I didn't vote for Obama because he didn't promise to end the war. I voted for Kerry in '04 because I was so upset about Bush. I later regretted it, almost immediately. I felt ashamed that I had voted for a warmonger, and relieved that he didn't win, and I wouldn't be stuck with the emotional investment of having created a John Kerry world in which we had 500,000+ troops in the middle east.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Phoenix.... everyone has to vote their own interests, and you have to vote yours. I'm glad that Obama has had at least ONE positive effect for a group of regular people.

My litmus test for Obama was health care. We have a mentally disabled daughter who would never get healthcare as an individual because of her pre-existing condition. I would have happily purchased Medicare for her, if that had been an option. Now, we are stuck with this kind of publicly-mandated private mishmash. My vote against Obama is based on something very specific, as is your vote for him, and that is as it should be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 6:41 AM

Agreed, though I'm of the mind if the plan is to waste a vote, then why vote. Everyone else is too invested in the parties, it's not like a few people throwing protest votes to the independents is going to break up the parties or make any difference.

What we need almost is to make some kind of loose organization, being careful to only take grass roots money and not astroturf, on a platform that'll appeal to a wide range. Hopefully something common sense, because most people left and right ARE common sense, and really only diverge on wedge issues.

For example, both the left types here and a number of the libertarians think we've done our time in the wars. Bringing troops home, closing or maybe even selling off some of our foreign military bases to locals, making whatever defense we do need more efficient, that'll give us a nice chunk of cash to deal with the deficit and national debt issue.

We can figure out other stuff as we go, but since there's going to be such a range of ideologies represented, people should be able to find a local candidate with the platform they want. Then, either when we erode the parties, attract their attention, or attract the attention of their funding, we publically dissolve, and keep going on in secret, maybe reforming later. Wash, rinse, repeat, until we've completely undermined the two party system and parties themselves become obsolete.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Take too damn long - I still favor my idea of a Reign of Terror PURGE.

The GOP is weak, floundering, easy prey for the pirahna pack attack, and thus we encourage the Democrats to set upon them in a frenzy, seeking their absolute destruction as a political force, and while we're at it, maneuver the Democrats nice and close to that cliff edge so when they finally push those GOP bastards over, before they consolidate their position - the bums rush.

Call it a two-fer-one special.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:29 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Agreed, though I'm of the mind if the plan is to waste a vote, then why vote. Everyone else is too invested in the parties, it's not like a few people throwing protest votes to the independents is going to break up the parties or make any difference.

I'm not so sure about that. If a million people leave the Democratic party, or don't vote for the Democrat in the election, and instead vote for a Socialist or Green Party candidate, it doesn't seem to send much of a message on the surface. What's the loss of a million votes in a party of 70 million or so, right?

But where it DOES send the message is in the massive influx of support for "radical" progressive candidates. A million votes for a Green or Socialist? That would be a HUGE increase in support. And it's that kind of shift - what might be a 1.5% loss of support to a major party could mean a 25% GAIN for a third party. No Democratic party policy wonk is going to let something like that go unnoticed. When you see a tiny third party gaining major market share, and when they're taking that increase from YOUR party's base, you notice. And you damned well address it.

The Tea Party is living proof; they're only taken seriously by the Republican party, because that's who they're poaching votes from. That's why the GOP has turned so hard to the right lately, and away from centrist policies. The Tea Party pulled them to the right, and it's time for progressives to pull the Democrats to the left.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:29 AM

Byte,

It doesn't win the election, but it demonstrates that the major parties are losing votes on a particular issue, so then they adopt the platform to win those votes back.

Frem

Let them eat cake. The revolution didn't turn out too well, and pretty soon you had a new emperor who invaded Russia. (And also Palestine.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:31 AM

I know what you mean... Sometimes I want it done with.

The only reason I want to go slow is because I have concerns about a backup economy for when the current one collapses. I know we have some underground safety nets in place people have been working on, but I'm not sure about the extent of it yet.

Just want to be careful about hurting innocent members of the public.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:37 AM

The tea party was astroturf. I don't really see them as an example of a viable main stream third party option. Even if a third party did become mainstream, how long do you think before one of the parties either absorb it or rename themselves? Then we're back to a two party system. Party systems in general are horrible and increase corruption. That's why I'm thinking less of a party, and more a grassroots funding process.

I still think eventually funding is going to get pulled on the tea party and the public support is going to be cut loose, and those people might be a useful resource to grab... Not sure about how realistic that is, but it'd be neat to pull off, and maybe a starting ground for the other plans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:02 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"then why vote"

Clinton (43.0% of the vote), Bush 1 (37.5%), Perot (18.9%) - and that was after the Perot campaign imploded. Lesson learned - third parties make a difference, and they indicate what the major parties need to pay attention to. Sitting at home tells the parties - do what you want, I don't care. Voting for an alternative tells the parties - this is the position you need to take seriously.

SignyM - I agree, people should definitely think about what their true interests are, and vote them. If people very specifically checked out their interests and voted for them, instead of slavishly and stupidly echoing empty rhetoric like freedom and profit and deficit, or hope and change, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:22 AM

I don't give a damn about sending the parties a message by vote, because I want to see them both hung. Why should I care about influencing them if I would rather work towards making them crumble?

Even if they get a message, they'll only pay it lip service rather than an honest effort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 9:47 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And that's where American politics fails. One election cycle doesn't count. Think of the political system like a rather stupid dog. You have to swat it with the newspaper repeatedly for it to take the lesson.

As I have posted before - over the long haul, in a democracy we get the government we deserve. And unless we do different, this will continue to be what we deserve.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 10:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki, I agree with what you've said.

As for voting, I haven't made up my mind yet. I may vote for Obama, or I may vote for the Green Party or some other, for just the reasons stated; it DOES send a message, and if more people do it, more people might do it. When people see others voting their conscience, it's, if nothing else, encouragement to them to do the same.

Everyone keeps forgetting, in their rush to diss Obama, that the alternative would have been McCain. Not just McCain, but McCain/PALIN! I would never vote for such a ticket if my life depended on it.

The list of reasons not to vote for him is certainly viable (oh, and you forgot he's in favor of "clean coal", which doesn't exist). But Iv'e watched how giving the GOP so much power in the midterms turned into such a disaster on a state level, and in Congress when it comes to the Tea Party asshatted stubbornness. So it's a toss-up for me at this time. I'm waiting until the actual election to decide. I didn't vote for Obama in the primary, but once nominated, he was (as I'm accustomed to), the leser of two evils. I'm guessing it'll be that way again, unless something changes dramatically.

To each their own.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 10:19 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The Tea Party pulled them to the right, and it's time for progressives to pull the Democrats to the left.

Then again the centre's there for the taking...

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 10:37 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It depends on where you think the center is ... at this point politically it looks to me like it's somewhere between right-wing batshit crazy and Bush-lite. Meanwhile the population (wants social security, wants the rich taxed more, supports unions, wants pot legalized, gay marriage, etc) is looking downright left-wing radical.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 10:41 AM

...I can agree with that, but with the caveat that I think voting for what THEY choose is just playing THEIR game, so nothing changes. To really change anything, I think you have to field candidates that aren't party and corporate bought ones. So we need to change the party and campaign funding and election system still. Until then, I don't buy that voting does anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:16 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

SOME of them - aren't corporate shills or professional political hacks. Russ Feingold was one. Kucinich is another. The trick is to vote for the ones who really are better, and if they're not in your district or state, send money or volunteer. Even if it's just a little. And keep at it. The first one to get voted out of office for not keeping their lofty promises or not living up to their lofty rhetoric won't change much. The fourth or fifth will make them have to do business in a different way if they want to keep any continuity and get traction.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It depends on where you think the center is ... at this point politically it looks to me like it's somewhere between right-wing batshit crazy and Bush-lite. Meanwhile the population (wants social security, wants the rich taxed more, supports unions, wants pot legalized, gay marriage, etc) is looking downright left-wing radical.

Right on.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:33 AM

The problem with that is how many honest ones ARE the political parties going to put up, and how many gt pushed aside or labeled "controversial" by their own parties for ones that can be controlled?

I still think the safest bet is to end the parties first. And I don't think you can do that while still using and supporting the current party system. No offense to those few guys who are honest, but I can't support them because supporting them IS supporting the party system indirectly. It's giving the party system my tacit approval.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't give a damn about sending the parties a message by vote, because I want to see them both hung. Why should I care about influencing them if I would rather work towards making them crumble?

Well, a third-party vote does several things, all good:

It raises the viability and visibility of third parties. People need an alternative before they jump ship. This creates that alternative.

It sends the party a "message". It may respond to that message by shifting its position more in your favor.

It cuts the party into pieces. There is nothing like failure to being internal dissension and infighting. There will be people in the party who will seriously think about either jumping ship or taking over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:17 PM

It doesn't "create" anything, it's voting for something already established and therefore possibly already sold out. And still supporting a party system, because, as I said, any one of those third parties could be absorbed the minute it seems like they might be a threat to the existing parties.

Even splitting a party or tempting someone else to take over is not enough, because we still end up with bad mojo. I'll only settle for complete ruination of both parties.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 1:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, what's your solution then? Sit at home?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:40 PM

My solution was that people need to organize in a way that is both not within the existing parties and not LIKE the existing parties, but which can grassroots fund candidates from the general population and not just these rich dynasty folks with seedy connections everywhere. Which I already said.

There are some existing groups that may serve the purpose, but even though I like the idea of taking them over, one of the main complications is that it would be impossible to find all the moles, and even after the parties pulled out most of their support, they could come back and try to influence if they saw the movements gaining steam again.

The other option is starting on the local level on the campaigns of people who have not declared party lines, and building a coalition among campaign staffers. Eventually we might be able to seep in and undermine bigger candidates, possibly even into some of the parties. Working on campaign staffs is probably something most anyone can do, my brother's done quite a bit of it, I could probably learn some tricks from him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, there are hundreds of well-meaning grass-roots organizations, anything from muckraking individuals (Jim Hightower) to online groups (MoveOn.org). The problem isn't creating them, the problem is organizing them into an effective unit.

Feel free to to create (yet another) organization but I don't think it's gonna help. And BTW, the only "moles" you have to worry about are the FBI, which now has free rein to poke its nose into legitimate, legal organizations for any reason, or none whatsoever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 4:13 PM

The tea party was real when it was created by ron paul. It became astroturf when it was infiltrated by glenn beck. The problem was that Beck's following from his radio and tv show was about 4 million compared to Paul's million or so, so beck became 80% of the movement, and so the party's main issues were suddenly becks, and not pauls. This is crashing the party, or raiding, which is what buchanan did to the RPUSA.

I'm seeing a purpose to govt. as it gets worse: It makes a great opponent. You can actually organize people to oppose a govt. this bad, in a way that was difficult to do against a govt. that was only "almost this bad."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 6:05 PM

Voting sure isn't doing anything. Time to try something else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:01 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Signe, I can definitely agree with some of your reasons you list. The others are reasons that make sense for you to not vote for him because he promised to do things to get your vote and then he let you down and didn't do them. So it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't want to vote for him in 2012.

PR, I think that's totally fair and I think people who are honest about things like that are more realistic than people who aren't. I like people will admit what they need and want.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Voting sure isn't doing anything. Time to try something else.

I really agree

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 11:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem isn't creating them, the problem is organizing them into an effective unit.

No it ain't.

The problem is damn fools who continue to think they can accomplish anything playing the enemys game, by the enemys rules, at the enemys table, with the enemys deck.

At BEST, all they accomplish is a see-saw effect, lofting whichever of the two groups is at the moment less slimy, a hair over the other, whee, what an accomplishment.

Y'all need to start thinkin about the consequences of playing by the rules of a fixed game set up to ensure you fail, before you go playin by those rules in the first place.

As for the agents provocateur, I hate to break it to ya, but you also have to worry about local Gov, law enforcement, the campaign drones of folks you oppose, and trolls from any corporations you even pretend to threaten - but chasing them off isn't the smartest way to handle em, since they can be useful in a sense once flagged and identified as such, then fed misinformation, or sent on snipe hunts till they get frustrated and do something stupid enough to damage their own cause instead of yours.

No security measure is ever 100% perfect, but given how lazy, incompetent and unimaginative the bad actors of our times are, it's not really that hard to catch them out, were it not for folk who deliberately enable them out of sheer malice, and THOSE should be chased off if not tarred and feathered even *IF* they're your most radical supporters.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 12:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM
I knew a guy who knew a guy in the Communist Party USA. The head of the local chapter... Joe, I think was his ... was told by a worried new member that he thought so-and-so was a member of the FBI. Joe's response was: Well, he may be, but he hands out more pamphlets than anyone else.

BYTE
When you figure out what that "something else" is, please let us know. There are lots of options to consider: boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience, monkey-wrenching, etc. Perhaps you are looking to build an alternate society from the ground up? I have spent many years considering that idea, but realize that it won't work for a variety of reasons.

However, if you want to strike at the heart of capitalism, set up an alternate bank and currency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 12:39 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The tea party was real when it was created by ron paul. It became astroturf when it was infiltrated by glenn beck

Amen, tho' I would add more than just Beck alone...

Byte, I understand your thinking and am of somewhat the same mind. But to me, achieving anything like that hasn't a chance in hell of happening--at the very LEAST, in my time. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with the system we've got, so I'm stuck with the "least worst candidate".

I'll keep saying it until I turn blue: Whatever Obama has or hasn't accomplished, he couldn't have done (or stopped from being done) ANYTHING without Congress. Between the Republicans filibustering EVERYTHING and now in control of Congress, I'm not sure what Obama could have accomplished if he'd been able to. Which is NOT to ignore the fact that he hasn't pushed hard enough and that the Dems are a bunch of wusses. Just some perspective.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 12:50 PM

JAMERON4EVA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Sig

I applaud your stance. Vote socialist. I disagree with socialism, but you don't. The only way you're going to get a better caliber of democrat is to protest vote (Hey, it's what I do, sometimes, I even vote for the socialist.) But I do it to send a message.

Each season, the fear mongers come out and say "you must support us, regardless of how much we suck, because the ooh scary evil other side will win."

Reality check. Both sides are scary and evil. And they'll remain so until we kick their asses and pull them back in line.

Carter was a halfway decent democrat, but he was spying on americans and funding secret revolutions just like reagan. Clinton was much more of the same, and Obama's shaping up to be more. What's happening to our party is what happened to the GOP with Reagan fever: It ended in Bush.

The way I look at it, the only way your vote is counted is if it's a protest vote. Think about it:

What would happen if it were *really* so close that your vote counted?

First, you'd have to be the key swing state where the points mattered. Only one of the 50 states will be in this position in the election, and it is never New York, and it's never Texas, and I don't remember where you're from, but it's always going to be one of those 50/50 states (NC, OH, FL, etc.) There might 8 or 10.

Now, if that *does* happen, then lets say it gets so close that they start counting votes.

One side will cheat. Whoever has the most thugs (Kennedy in Illinois, Bush in OH and FL)

And if that doesn't decide it, someone will call in the Supreme Court to vote on it.

So, a vote for a major party candidate in the general is never going to be counted.

However, a vote for a third party candidate sends the message "We're losing some of our loyal base on this issue" and that pulls the party back. (This is part of why there's such a christian pandering on the right. They lost a percent or two to some christian candidates.) Notice they didn't pander really to Ross Perot. A serious third party challenger is a threat (Same with Dems and Nader.) They just attack.

So, that vote becomes, sadly, a one issue vote, but it's better than absolutely no vote, which is what we get by default.

In the last NY election I voted for the Green candidate, Howie Hawkins, an avowed socialist. I disagree with Hawkins on just about everything. I solidly agree with Black Panther candidate Charles Barron on just about everything. But I voted green, because I knew how the protest vote would be counted. Both of them agreed with me on the environment, but Green would send the message "Dems, you've been sucking on this issue." the Panther's freedom party sends the message "Dems, you're losing the black vote." That wasn't the message I was trying to send. I wanted to send "you're losing the Green vote."

Oh, Obama waffled on torture, and then he endorsed "Extraordinary Rendition" openly, which is the govt's official term for "Outsourcing Torture."

Personally, I think the Osama thing was a stunt. Jessica Lynch was a stunt, Pat Tillman was a stunt. These stunts make leaders plummet in my opinion because they assume we are stupid, and they are not only willing to lie to us straight faced, but they're willing to kill people to make their lies seem real. That takes a special class of person.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Bush > Obama

Bush=Obama || Bush=~Obama

(more or less)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Carter? CARTER?!? Over half the problems were dealing with now steem from Carter. The idiot "Turned the economy around" so much, we were driven into a deeper pit than before him. Hell, even some of our problems can be blamed on Regan, i know a staunch call considering im fundametaly a republican (kinda), the ONLY way we beat the Soviet Union is because we OUTSPENT them. Then you got Mr. Bush (daddy), then you got Clinton who sold weapons to our current enemys, AND got our troops out of Iraq the first time, which was a stupid move, we wouldnt be there now if we'd stayed there then. Of course Bush (W.) has his problems, and lord knows Obama sucks. And a good majority of political problems steem from two things, control, and parties. If you want an example look at the war, when the military was runing things we were getting the job done, once the politicians took control deaths, deaths, deaths, deaths. And parties....wasn't it Geroge Washington who in his farewell address warned off political parties, and even said that they would lead to America's downfall? I mean, "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" right?

"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22

"We mustn't over stimulate young minds. Das ist verboten!" - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 1:47 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

This is clearly not the popular opinion here, but I will be voting for Obama again, for one simple reason. I am a student.

I've also gotten better loans and more grants. (it is a selfish reason, and I know that)
I do have a couple other reasons, but that's my big one. I can't help it. I'm broke and poor and studentish.

And here I thought it was noble and selfLESS to vote for those who'll do best by the country, even if it means little or no personal benefit to me.

The " gimmie gimmie " mentality is exactly what is destroying Greece. Sorry, but the What's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine concept won't work here. It never works anywhere. Ever.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy- oh, so now "we" have to be patriotic and self-sacrificing? What happened to "self interest" being the driver of society and the economy? Are only SOME people supposed to be selfish (yanno, like the CEOs of investment banks who get hundreds of millions for poor performance) and everyone else is supposed to be noble?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 2:05 PM

Jam, I'm with you on Clinton.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2011 3:38 PM