Sure, but on whose behalf? A narrow interest group or the broader interests of the population? It seems you just want the narrow interest groups you favour.
Right. Because as a GIS tec/Forrester i have every reason to favor ... automotive manufacturing.
Would you care to try an ad hom that at least makes sense?
Greece's economy is f*~~ed but they don't have a big banking sector, but they nevertheless have lots of interest groups. It's clientelism on a grand scale, with closed shops for everything up to and including taxis. Crappy economic growth disguised by borrowing, which has come back to roost. You don't need corporations to get corruption.
You don't need a plane to get to England, but it helps.
Germany has done fine, by keeping up with technological innovation which is much harder in systems with predatory unions.
I suppose their ample training programs abundance of college education have nothing to do with it? Or what effectively a government subsidy for the corporation (compared to america) by providing free health care doesn't help.
Who f%*&ed GM? China? Hardly, it was Americans who didn't want to buy those cars, because the massive overheads meant you got crap cars at great expense.
Look, just because a car has a name on it like Mitzubishi doesn't mean it was made in japan. Americans had no problem buying cars sketched out by engineers and bureaucrats in japan and made in America.
The ability to easily export to their neighbors also helps. You could easily compare sections of America with Germany, it just doesn't hold when you pan out and look at all of Europe.
Look to organised labour if you want to know what happened to US manufacturing.
Oh enough with that canard. There was more than enough profit to go around, there was just more to be made elsewhere where you could screw over the workers. Even if the unions went away, the rights they helped to normalize into law (min. wage, employer paid health care, work safety practices, child labor laws) would make it more expensive to do business here. You act as though the only options are maximum corporate profit or death.
What makes you different from a banker feathering his nest at the expense of everyone else? I wouldn't really mind so much if it wasn't wrapped in a moralising tone and cod economics.
The difference is two fold. The first is that the person on the assembly line MAKES something. The banker just moves money around from point A to point B and skims off the top. The second is that a manufacturing base affects a LOT more people, directly and indirectly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe that voting in a monopoly is the answer and would only make things way worse.
It wouldn't stay a monopoly. If your options are 1 and 10 you end up with 5. If your options are 5 and 15 you end up with 10.
There's a difference between the Democrats and the Greens. The Democrats, the ones that have made it into higher office at least, are a bunch of power-hungry millionaires who pretend to be for the people. The Greens are normal people who actually are for the people.
Would you like a roller or is your brush broad enough?
When I elect a politician I'm looking to get laws enacted. I'm not voting for a saint, I'm not putting in a person I like , I'm not putting in someone I want to have a drink with. I'm putting in a means of getting laws passed. That's it.
You are doing absolutely no good voting for Democrats. They're a bunch of fakers. People like you are the problem. I'm not saying this to be mean or insulting, I'm saying it because it's true.
It's rude, insulting demeaning, arrogant, and worse, its completely unbacked by any argument you're making for your point. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish by voting for third parties except to keep your soul clean?
Instead of just throwing up our hands and acting like there isn't anything we can do about it, why don't we start doing something about it? If enough people are willing to stand up and criticize both the Democratic and Republican elite, and endorse people who would lead for the benefit of the citizens who elected them, America would be much better off. We might not win right away but we've got to start somewhere.
This sort of thinking got us the bush presidency (that and al gore's use of charisma as a dump stat...)
There's a reason we wound up with two parties. Criticize the democrats all you want. Split off from them and siphon off their votes. Guess what happens in our system across the country if Republicans get 51% of the vote, democrats get 40% of the vote, and greens get 9% of the vote. Do you get 9% of greens in office? No. You get ZERO.. none.. nadda, zip zero BUPKIS. You wind up with an all republican government because our system is winner take all.
You want to show me you're right? Give me a plan that gets results and show me you have something better than insults.
__________________________________________
The one here in Omaha was only 50 ppl.
Hey, half the city is a good turn out for one of these things! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the other major international issue directly related to the working class is immigration. Our current system of "slave underclass" is only working for the wealthy. I know it probably isn't very popular with most Lefty types, but we need well guarded boarders and ports, and the immigrants that are here illegally need to be made legal or shipped back- no more illegal working class.
Yeah, you called it, I hate this idea.
As a)the descendant of destitute Italian immigrants (one of whom left Bari a step ahead of the carabinieri looking to throw him in jail) and; b) a proponent of the old idea that "workingmen have no country" and "proletarian of all lands, unite!", I think that anyone who gets here should be able to stay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess what happens in our system across the country if Republicans get 51% of the vote,...
They cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
They end welfare as we know it?
They start illegal wars in the Middle East?
They assassinate American citizens?
They preside over the rollback of collective bargaining gains?
I don't think any kind of real change is going to occur in this country if everyone is too busy looking at the next election. Of course, I've gone down on record as saying I don't think any kind of real change is going to occur through the electoral process, either, so feel free to ignore me.
"Voting is the opiate of the masses and every four years the American people deaden the pain."
--Rough paraphrase of Emma Goldman in the film Reds
lulz
We're up to almost a cool million folks in the greater Omaha metro...
50 is nothing.
People here don't have much if anything to be upset about, it's just 50 people felt solidarity I suppose.
Probably out of staters ;)
Yeah, so the "Occupy Houston" thing is lame. Went by yesterday to check it out from a safe distance (it's two blocks from the Fed Court, don't need my PO seeing me there), and there's nothing really to it. I was kind of disappointed.
Should have released to Austin, theirs seem more fun...
I'm sorry man. I thought there would be more hot chicks lining up to occupy your time!!! ;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry man. I thought there would be more hot chicks lining up to occupy your time!!! ;-)Yeah, so the "Occupy Houston" thing is lame. Went by yesterday to check it out from a safe distance (it's two blocks from the Fed Court, don't need my PO seeing me there), and there's nothing really to it. I was kind of disappointed.
Should have released to Austin, theirs seem more fun...
Both of the ones I was thinking about up and got themselves boyfriends in my absence. :/
;-)
And, seriously, are people STILL thinking Obama is any better than Bush? Seriously?
Democrats are just as criminally beholden to Corporate America as Repubs, they just don't spout off a bunch of religious BS. Please.
Yeah, keep denigrating people who opted out of voting for the two majors. Keep voting for the status quo. Keep WASTING YOUR VOTE.
Meh.
|
Coase theorum - really you only need to read the first 8 pages or so to get his argument.
I'm a bit behind the conversation, but if we are going to talk about libertarianism and deregulation, Coase is the revolutionary guy, and Pigou was who he was revolting against :)
Some stuff happened this weekend, another vet in the hospital, overdose in vancouver etc
I don't believe that voting in a monopoly is the answer and would only make things way worse.It wouldn't stay a monopoly. If your options are 1 and 10 you end up with 5. If your options are 5 and 15 you end up with 10.
This plan wouldn't work. There are just as many people who feel that Democrats are evil and vote for the lesser of two evils by aligning with the Republicans. You can't pick one political party and say, "Everybody, you need to vote for these guys." People have different ideals. They have different goals for our government. The one thing that we can ALL agree on (slight exaggeration) is that our government is corrupt and not acting in our best interests. That is why I offer three choices that cover everyone's beliefs even better than the two major parties.
When I elect a politician I'm looking to get laws enacted. I'm not voting for a saint, I'm not putting in a person I like , I'm not putting in someone I want to have a drink with. I'm putting in a means of getting laws passed. That's it.
Our current administration is doing such a wonderful job in this department. I can see why you continue to support them. /s
It's rude, insulting demeaning, arrogant, and worse, its completely unbacked by any argument you're making for your point. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish by voting for third parties except to keep your soul clean?
I apologize for offending you. This isn't my intention.
The only real support I can offer is common sense and a quick look at some of the other democracies around the world work. I'll see if I can get some references for you when I get a chance.
Keeping my soul clean is enough. I believe that more people should try it. In fact, I hope it becomes a trend.
This sort of thinking got us the bush presidency (that and al gore's use of charisma as a dump stat...)
This is false. It's a guilt trip laid on you by the Democratic party and as a juvenile excuse as to why they lost the election. THEY DON'T OWN OUR VOTES! We are still free to vote for whomever we want and a decent percentage of people liked Nader.
There's a reason we wound up with two parties. Criticize the democrats all you want. Split off from them and siphon off their votes. Guess what happens in our system across the country if Republicans get 51% of the vote,...
You are assuming that I'm splitting off from the Democrats. In fact, if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one of the two major parties, it's probably 60-40 I'd vote for the Republicans. If I'm going to be selfish, which is what we are doing by voting for the lesser of two evils, I'm going to support the party that isn't going to tax me to death so that I can pay for health insurance for other people while getting nothing in return (except made into a criminal if I can't afford to buy my own). Truth is, I've never voted for either of them. Neither one of them covers my ideals more than 50% and they haven't done anything at all to earn my vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will freely admit that the 2 party system is a big source of our political corruption. Each election is essentially a good guy/bad guy contest that seems to serve no purpose other than to polarize our society. Theoretically, the parties are supposed to absorb splinter groups and adopt useful platforms to evolve, but that seems to not happen or happen superficially.
I feel obligated to point out that one of OWS's demands is to make political contributions very regulated, and to allow all candidates equal air time for free:
Demands. #3 is the relevant one.
It would at least make the fight fair. I wonder what that would be like? *head explodes*
This plan wouldn't work. There are just as many people who feel that Democrats are evil and vote for the lesser of two evils by aligning with the Republicans.
And if people think democrats are evil they think that the greens are atheist satanist muslim devil chiuaua's incarnate. If we had a party that stood for what everyone wanted they would get in. The problem is that not all people want the same thing.
You can't pick one political party and say, "Everybody, you need to vote for these guys." People have different ideals. They have different goals for our government. The one thing that we can ALL agree on (slight exaggeration) is that our government is corrupt and not acting in our best interests. That is why I offer three choices that cover everyone's beliefs even better than the two major parties.
Look, this is WHY there are only two parties in the us. You have 100 people. 40 of them comprimise and vote for the major party they agree with 60% of the time. 40 of them do the same thing with the OTHER party. 20% don't comprimise and vote with the 3rd party that agrees with them.. but since they agree at different ends lets say 10% goes green and 10% goes conservative constitution party.
What does the resulting electorate look like? its not 40 40 10 10. Its 50 50.
Our current administration is doing such a wonderful job in this department. I can see why you continue to support them. /s
Because I don't see a better option that can reasonably be done.
I apologize for offending you. This isn't my intention.
ANd yet you keep doing it. Worse its ALL you're doing. You haven't offered a single argument or point to rationally do something different.
The only real support I can offer is common sense
See, more backhanded insults. I'm offering you examples of how and why your ideas won't work with the system we have in place. Instead of suggesting how to get your ideas to work you have the offhand remark implying that i lack common sense.
Have you met common people? Their senses suck. Give me uncommon senses any day.
and a quick look at some of the other democracies around the world work. I'll see if I can get some references for you when I get a chance.
I'm well aware of how other counties do it, but the political reality is that its nearly impossible to pass a regular law much less a constitutional amendment.
Keeping my soul clean is enough. I believe that more people should try it. In fact, I hope it becomes a trend.
Its not enough. Its a matter of pride. I prefer DOING a little to saying a lot.
This is false. It's a guilt trip laid on you by the Democratic party and as a juvenile excuse as to why they lost the election. THEY DON'T OWN OUR VOTES! We are still free to vote for whomever we want and a decent percentage of people liked Nader.
If the folks voting for nader had gone for gore instead things would have been different. (or if they'd done what I'd done. I'm in new york, i voted for nader, and had someone else vote for gore in my place)
You are assuming that I'm splitting off from the Democrats. In fact, if someone put a gun to my head and forced me to vote for one of the two major parties
Meh. It was a fair bet on this thread.
Change the name to protect the innocent. the story is still the same. Join or die, divide and be conquered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to interject my opinion here.
I am an American who just a few months ago moved to Europe ( The Netherlands specifically )
I have been watching the Occupy movement, and would have been a participant if I was there.
This is not a movement to "Punish" rich people. If you make a tremendous amount of money ( or inherited it ) good for you. The thing is people with huge amounts of capital can easily use those assets to literally make more money. Rich people can earn money from having money.
A middle or lower class person can never hope to use any significant amount of the money they earn to invest because it is completely wrapped up in paying for their obligations.
Asking people who make a lot more money to pay more in taxes ( especially now in such terrible economic times ) is completely reasonable, when the have not people are losing everything.
This is not a movement to "Punish" rich people.
Of course it isn't. But that's the idea that lets the rich people argue to continue avoiding to pay lower tax rates overall (don't you dare give me that income tax malarky) so that's the spin the rich people and their news network (fox) are going to put on it.
The one thing that we can ALL agree on (slight exaggeration) is that our government is corrupt and not acting in our best interests. That is why I offer three choices that cover everyone's beliefs even better than the two major parties.
Well, its certainly acting in the best interests of large corporations.
More evidence the OWS folks are mad at the wrong people...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More evidence the OWS folks are mad at the wrong people...
You do realize that well over half of the protesters disapprove of Obama, right? He has below the national average approval rating with the protesters. But instead of complaining at him, they are complaining at the people who have bought him off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the people that I have encountered at Occupy events are mad at the corporations AND the government, the banks AND the Democrats, the financial speculators AND the Republicans.
I think these are ALL the right people to be mad at.
I do realize this.
But the coverage they are getting, and the lip service they are getting from the White House leads people to believe otherwise.
Why isn't there an Occupy DC?
Is there?
Why isn't there an Occupy DC?
Is there?
YES!!!!!!!
EDIT: Occupy DC
Sorry, I missed it!
Why no coverage I wonder? Are they behaving themsleves?
Are there not alot of folks there?
I don't know much about what's been going on there.
On the page starting with post 501, sixth post, there are two articles about DC--one in the link from Comrade Hawkshaw, and the first link in my response.
It is, however, a month old. I edited my post above and provided a link for Occupy DC. I haven't read it yet, though.
Sorry, I missed it!
Why no coverage I wonder? Are they behaving themsleves?
Are there not alot of folks there?
You know, I knew that there was an Occupy DC, but until now I hadn't looked for them in the news or anything specifically. Its wierd that they are getting no coverage at all.
They aren't making headlines even after apparently storming a conservative activist function at a convention center.
I do realize this.
But the coverage they are getting, and the lip service they are getting from the White House leads people to believe otherwise.
This is because the Democrats are hoping to co-opt it, and the conservative and liberal media, for opposite reasons, want it to be co-opted.
I am not convinced that it WON'T be co-opted, which is why I've spent roughly 1/3 of my time in this thread yelling: BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
EDIT: And making that my main point when talking to other Occupiers.
But, historically speaking, that would be the most likely outcome of all this. :(
Viirdran Daragor avatar
More evidence the OWS folks are mad at the wrong people...
Not really. Obama was more than willing to help out the American people the same way they helped out wallstreet. However, people vastly overestimate the amount of actual power that the president has.
Why can't he ? Because he doesn't control congress. Who controls congress? Wallstreet.
The protestors are in the right place.
Not really. Obama was more than willing to help out the American people the same way they helped out wallstreet. However, people vastly overestimate the amount of actual power that the president has.
Why can't he ? Because he doesn't control congress. Who controls congress? Wallstreet.
The protestors are in the right place.
I really hope you're being facetious.
The assumption here that Obama is any less in Wallstreet's pocket is absurd. I think you've been hoodwinked, sir.
Not really. Obama was more than willing to help out the American people the same way they helped out wallstreet. However, people vastly overestimate the amount of actual power that the president has.
Why can't he ? Because he doesn't control congress. Who controls congress? Wallstreet.
The protestors are in the right place.
I really hope you're being facetious.
The assumption here that Obama is any less in Wallstreet's pocket is absurd. I think you've been hoodwinked, sir.
no, i disagree. It's a numbers game -even if obama threw off the shackles of the corporations controlling him, he is but one man /part of government, and he really can't do much without congressional approval. Sure the things he can do are more than you or I, but he is not a king in that he can do absolute whatever he wants, as many people many people seem to feel the office of the presidency is.
I really hope you're being facetious.
I don't do facetious.
The assumption here that Obama is any less in Wallstreet's pocket is absurd. I think you've been hoodwinked, sir.
Obama wanted to spend money to bail out wallstreet and spend money to bail out the american people.
Republicans wanted to spend the money to bail out wallstreet (the deal was signed under bush remember) but DIDN"T want to spend money to bail out the american people.. because that would mean taxing the people on wallstreet more and cost the wall street folks "their" money.
So yes, when you leave behind the dichotomy of in the pocket out of the pocket it becomes clear his ears at least are poking out of the top while republicans are so far in the pocket that the bankers should get roo shoes.
I do realize this.
But the coverage they are getting, and the lip service they are getting from the White House leads people to believe otherwise.
This is because the Democrats are hoping to co-opt it, and the conservative and liberal media, for opposite reasons, want it to be co-opted.
I am not convinced that it WON'T be co-opted, which is why I've spent roughly 1/3 of my time in this thread yelling: BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
EDIT: And making that my main point when talking to other Occupiers.
But, historically speaking, that would be the most likely outcome of all this. :(
The only way such a co-opt could end badly is if the dems pretend to co-opt the movement and then continue business as usual.
The purpose of movements like this is to force the main parties to evolve. Short of starting their own party, which they have said they won't do, getting co-opted by the dems should be their long term goal. Otherwise, what are they going to accomplish? If their demands are met, will they just fade away? And how can those demands be met at all, without first being fully embraced by the dems?
Getting co-opted might alienate OWS's conservative sympathizers, but on the other hand, if the sort of discourse going on in this thread is happening across the country, it might not.
I removed a post in the hopes of keeping this discussion on an even keel.
I do realize this.
But the coverage they are getting, and the lip service they are getting from the White House leads people to believe otherwise.
This is because the Democrats are hoping to co-opt it, and the conservative and liberal media, for opposite reasons, want it to be co-opted.
I am not convinced that it WON'T be co-opted, which is why I've spent roughly 1/3 of my time in this thread yelling: BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!
EDIT: And making that my main point when talking to other Occupiers.
But, historically speaking, that would be the most likely outcome of all this. :(
The only way such a co-opt could end badly is if the dems pretend to co-opt the movement and then continue business as usual.
The purpose of movements like this is to force the main parties to evolve. Short of starting their own party, which they have said they won't do, getting co-opted by the dems should be their long term goal. Otherwise, what are they going to accomplish? If their demands are met, will they just fade away? And how can those demands be met at all, without first being fully embraced by the dems?
Getting co-opted might alienate OWS's conservative sympathizers, but on the other hand, if the sort of discourse going on in this thread is happening across the country, it might not.
I think in the long run, I would like to see them assimalated into the political system. I hope it does not happen until after the political discourse has changed significantly and the democrats actually start doing the things they claim to support doing.
I removed a post in the hopes of keeping this discussion on an even keel.
There's just a *hint* of despair in the wording there, Ross. Made me smile.
I really hope you're being facetious.I don't do facetious.
The assumption here that Obama is any less in Wallstreet's pocket is absurd. I think you've been hoodwinked, sir.Obama wanted to spend money to bail out wallstreet and spend money to bail out the american people.
Republicans wanted to spend the money to bail out wallstreet (the deal was signed under bush remember) but DIDN"T want to spend money to bail out the american people.. because that would mean taxing the people on wallstreet more and cost the wall street folks "their" money.
So yes, when you leave behind the dichotomy of in the pocket out of the pocket it becomes clear his ears at least are poking out of the top while republicans are so far in the pocket that the bankers should get roo shoes.
Not enough of a distinction to make a difference.
I also don't recall Obama announceing that he was going to divy up a hundred billion dollars amongst the American people either. Wouldn't that have been a bail out?He isn't some glorious martyr for the ideals of the People.
He is just as politician as those he claims to disdain and work against.
He is just as involved in being the problem as anyone else in Washington DC.
The whole damn gov't needs a reboot.
Not enough of a distinction to make a difference.
Look, you could have Ralph Nader or swamp thing in the Whitehorse at this point. He wouldn't be passing any laws that obama isn't because the president doesn't actually run the government.
I also don't recall Obama announceing that he was going to divy up a hundred billion dollars amongst the American people either. Wouldn't that have been a bail out?
The stimulus plan (which he wanted to make much bigger) and the american jobs act were the bailouts.
He isn't some glorious martyr for the ideals of the People.
He is just as politician as those he claims to disdain and work against.
He is just as involved in being the problem as anyone else in Washington DC.
The whole damn gov't needs a reboot.
The problem is in the hardware, not the software. A reboot isn't going to help.
I disagree. The framework is awesome, it's just full of termites atm.
Republicans wanted to spend the money to bail out wallstreet (the deal was signed under bush remember) but DIDN"T want to spend money to bail out the american people.. because that would mean taxing the people on wallstreet more and cost the wall street folks "their" money.
So yes, when you leave behind the dichotomy of in the pocket out of the pocket it becomes clear his ears at least are poking out of the top while republicans are so far in the pocket that the bankers should get roo shoes.
Wall Street big wigs spent more on Obama than McCain or either Bush. And it was a double barreled Democratic Congress that greased the stimluses, er, stimuli (?). The Plural of that term! I would not have believed that possible. Stop! Of course, a pliant and far too establishment W gleefully signed the pile of goodies through. The only 'people' Obama wanted to bail out he did. Union pensions, Gov't workers, hedgefund managers,...
I disagree. The framework is awesome, it's just full of termites atm.
In what year was it not full of termites?
Wall Street big wigs spent more on Obama than McCain or either Bush. And it was a double barreled Democratic Congress that greased the stimluses, er, stimuli (?). The Plural of that term! I would not have believed that possible. Stop! Of course, a pliant and far too establishment W gleefully signed the pile of goodies through. The only 'people' Obama wanted to bail out he did. Union pensions, Gov't workers, hedgefund managers,...
Citation? I hope you're not talking about the 2012 race. Theres no point spending on any republican candidate yet.
And if people think democrats are evil they think that the greens are atheist satanist muslim devil chiuaua's incarnate. If we had a party that stood for what everyone wanted they would get in. The problem is that not all people want the same thing.
That's why these people should vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Look, this is WHY there are only two parties in the us. You have 100 people. 40 of them comprimise and vote for the major party they agree with 60% of the time. 40 of them do the same thing with the OTHER party. 20% don't comprimise and vote with the 3rd party that agrees with them.. but since they agree at different ends lets say 10% goes green and 10% goes conservative constitution party.
What does the resulting electorate look like? its not 40 40 10 10. Its 50 50.
If America's third parties could reach even 5% of the vote, they would do two things.
1. Qualify for federal matching funds. This would help them out greatly. The Reform party has been in shambles since its inception but the matching funds that they received in the '96 and '00 elections kept them on the map. If they could have grew the party instead of dividing in two and self imploding, we might actually have a viable third option today.
2. Show the American people that these parties are growing and encourages them to take a look. Most Americans don't even know these parties exist. There's only so many Anthony Weiners and Jack Abramoffs before people starting seeking out alternatives. I know that I did a long time ago. I can't be that different from everyone else.
ANd yet you keep doing it. Worse its ALL you're doing. You haven't offered a single argument or point to rationally do something different.
If you think that ALL I am doing it throwing insults at you, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. And I am proposing a strategy. It's a difficult strategy that you obviously don't think could ever work but it is a strategy.
The only real support I can offer is common senseSee, more backhanded insults. I'm offering you examples of how and why your ideas won't work with the system we have in place. Instead of suggesting how to get your ideas to work you have the offhand remark implying that i lack common sense.
I have been stating how my ideas would work. Sure, they won't work overnight but like I stated at the top of this post, even a 5% take for one or more of the third parties would be a huge win for them. We have to play the long game no matter which way we go. Dumping the attractive , yet physically and emotionally abusive partner and starting anew with the less attractive yet loving and nurturing partner usually results in a healthier relationship than trying to rehabilitate the one that doesn't appreciate you. It's a better end game in my opinion.
I make this metaphor because this is how I see both of our approaches. I believe that rehabbing the Democrats and Republicans would only grant us the bare minimum that we beg for. The unattractive third parties, if given the opportunity, would more than likely go the extra mile and a half to please us. We would wonder why we stayed in our abusive relationship for so long.
Have you met common people? Their senses suck. Give me uncommon senses any day.
You're right. A high percentage of people are sheep and don't even think for themselves. They simply follow others lead. This will actually work to our advantage if we could garner up enough support for the third parties. If it became trendy, you can pretty much count on the sheep flocking.
Its not enough. Its a matter of pride. I prefer DOING a little to saying a lot.
I am doing just as much as you are, maybe more. At least my vote goes to someone that I truly want to vote for. You stated, and maybe I misinterpreted, that your vote is going to the lesser of two evils. You're not voting for something, you're voting against something else. How can anything ever change if we are simply trying to steer away from something instead of driving towards somewhere better?
The one thing that we can ALL agree on (slight exaggeration) is that our government is corrupt and not acting in our best interests. That is why I offer three choices that cover everyone's beliefs even better than the two major parties.Well, its certainly acting in the best interests of large corporations.
Yay! I'm glad we have common ground somewhere. We do agree that something needs to be done, we just disagree on the method. I'm sure you don't care for my abusive spouse analogy since it serves my purposes as opposed to yours but I really do believe that my strategy could work in the long run. Close to 50% voting-age population doesn't vote at all. Why? Much of the other 50% have NOTHING to vote for. I'm one of them. My political beliefs are polar opposite of the two major parties. A quarter of each I agree with and I am mostly opposed to war and big government which is something they both stand in favor of. I have a feeling that there are many others like me in this 50% that have nowhere to turn. If we could only give them that, it could draw in a lot of people. When Perot ran in '92, the voter turnout was significantly higher than in previous elections mostly due to the fact that there was a viable third party candidate to vote for. If people are pissed enough and an alternative or three presents itself, I really believe that America would start gravitating in that direction. Sure, 10% of the vote doesn't get you in office but it does get the media's attention and that's exactly what a long-shot needs to win. People like underdogs.
Wall Street big wigs spent more on Obama than McCain or either Bush. And it was a double barreled Democratic Congress that greased the stimluses, er, stimuli (?). The Plural of that term! I would not have believed that possible. Stop! Of course, a pliant and far too establishment W gleefully signed the pile of goodies through. The only 'people' Obama wanted to bail out he did. Union pensions, Gov't workers, hedgefund managers,...Citation? I hope you're not talking about the 2012 race. Theres no point spending on any republican candidate yet.
Trying to find a source, but banks gave more money to Obama than McCain in 2008. They made up 20% of funds raised.
Trying to find a source, but banks gave more money to Obama than McCain in 2008. They made up 20% of funds raised.
Banks will always "bet on the winner." McCain would have been their preferred candidate, but he wasn't going to win. Funding both sides is as old as the hills. Whoever wins, you bought yourself some influence.
That's exactly the sort of thing OWS is trying to stop.
That's why these people should vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Lets say i have a 10% block of Constitutionals, a 10% block of greens, a 40% block of republicans and a 40% block of democrats.
The major parties are close, but one isn't QUITE as bad as the other. Republicans aren't trying to take your guns and stop people from praying and Democrats aren't trying to add more arsenic to the water and cut down the national forests.
Voting for the off party is like a mexican stand off between members of the far left and the far right. If the constitutionals/greens don't go along with the republicans/democrats NONE of their candidates get into office and then they're stuck with the worse of two evils.
As long as you keep voting constitutional and the democrats aren't voting green you're going to wind up with an all democratic government.
2. Show the American people that these parties are growing and encourages them to take a look. Most Americans don't even know these parties exist. There's only so many Anthony Weiners and Jack Abramoffs before people starting seeking out alternatives. I know that I did a long time ago. I can't be that different from everyone else.
I don't understand how what wiener did can be considered more obscene than voting against the 9 11 responders bill, or of not covering cancer from that incident.
If you think that ALL I am doing it throwing insults at you, you are misinterpreting what I am saying. And I am proposing a strategy. It's a difficult strategy that you obviously don't think could ever work but it is a strategy.
Then tell me how it would work to get someone different into office or stop calling me sheeple.
I have been stating how my ideas would work. Sure, they won't work overnight but like I stated at the top of this post, even a 5% take for one or more of the third parties would be a huge win for them. We have to play the long game no matter which way we go.
1) People have short memories, the long game doesn't work in politics.
2) You have to keep lettting the other side into government to make it happen3) While the other side is in office unopposed they can gerrymander the election districts so that you'll never win an election before we hit mars.
I make this metaphor because this is how I see both of our approaches.
The analogy doesn't work because its a group decision. I cannot decide with my vote to get a different government, and neither can 10% of the population.
I am doing just as much as you are, maybe more. At least my vote goes to someone that I truly want to vote for. You stated, and maybe I misinterpreted, that your vote is going to the lesser of two evils. You're not voting for something, you're voting against something else. How can anything ever change if we are simply trying to steer away from something instead of driving towards somewhere better?
If you steer away from what you don't want you're getting closer to what you do want.
If people are pissed enough and an alternative or three presents itself, I really believe that America would start gravitating in that direction. Sure, 10% of the vote doesn't get you in office but it does get the media's attention and that's exactly what a long-shot needs to win. People like underdogs.
Ross Perot worked because he was privately funded. Without oodles of money the third parties are doomed. Also, once the third parties become worth buying, whats to keep corporations from buying them as well like they did with the tea party?
They knew Obama would do a bailout. They donated money to his campaign for their own interests.
How is this any different that any other lobbyist?
Trying to find a source, but banks gave more money to Obama than McCain in 2008. They made up 20% of funds raised.Wall Street big wigs spent more on Obama than McCain or either Bush. And it was a double barreled Democratic Congress that greased the stimluses, er, stimuli (?). The Plural of that term! I would not have believed that possible. Stop! Of course, a pliant and far too establishment W gleefully signed the pile of goodies through. The only 'people' Obama wanted to bail out he did. Union pensions, Gov't workers, hedgefund managers,...Citation? I hope you're not talking about the 2012 race. Theres no point spending on any republican candidate yet.
I don't have any exact stats for the question being discussed here, but back around post 475 there is some interesting numbers in the "Break with the Democrats" link.
Break with the Democrats!
This is one of the more interesting editorials I have seen. None of it is new, but it sumarizes what I see as the heart of the movement in a nice, non-partizan way. He seems to think that people are ignoring these facts, when I have seen all of them raised before.
With the initial Oakland police responce, I could mostly understand the police actions (even if I didn't agree with them.) This video though I cannot understand at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the initial Oakland police responce, I could mostly understand the police actions (even if I didn't agree with them.) This video though I cannot understand at all.
disgusting.
Yeah, I saw that the other day on Alex Jones's site.
"Having briefly tasted batons and pepper spray, OWSers should know that when capital feels it is being pushed to the wall, it will stop at nothing to crush any serious challenge. The cop puts away his smile. The indulgent mayor imposes a curfew. "Exemplary" sentences are handed down. The prisons fill up. The FBI dusts off the Cointelpro blueprint."
--Alexander Cockburn, "The Iron Heel and the Resistance"