Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Gerrymandering has usurped the will of the Founding Fathers, the SCOTUS should act but they won’t.

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 7, 2012, 7:01 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Given that the clear intend of the Founding Fathers was that the US House be “the people’s house” responsive and exposed to the will of The People every two years, yet gerrymandering districts has completely made holding them responsible impossible.

In a time when Congress approval is less than 10%, the Ruling Party lose less than 10 seats:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/congress-approval-rating-all-time-low-gallup-poll_n_1777207.html

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/House/2012/

Congressional Districts should be required to be as geographically small as possible, the intend is that people can talk it over.

UPDATE: 11/28/2012

and now the usurper gets his reward

http://atr.rollcall.com/westmoreland-named-nrcc-deputy-chairman/

117 Comments

117 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

Dennis Kucinich was gerrymandered out of office.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yes he was and it sucks

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

We have a lot of issues to still work on. This election doesn't do anything.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

we kept Romney from the White House, if you can't see how important that is, you should keep looking....

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

If you can't see how similar Romney and Obama are and how they are both bought and paid for than you should keep looking. We've accomplished next to nothing.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

This is political party bullshit, just because it comes from the Green Party doesn't make it less party bullshit, so you come here lying like a politician then get all high and mighty on me.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

Quit harassing me and bullying me. My views are way more in line with OWS than your views.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney and the GOP had 50 million "views" and the Ds had millions more, if it was about being popular why would any of us be here?

I just came to tell the truth I hope each day to find others that want to too.

If honest discussion is "harassing" I trust I wouldn't find you in any bank lobbies.

[-] -1 points by rayl (1007) 1 year ago

romney may have accelerated change with his repressive policies, just a thought....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

or killed it completely with a SCOTUS appointment, just a thought...

[-] 0 points by rayl (1007) 1 year ago

that could have also happened.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Romney's SCOTUS nominations would have consolidated fascism, so I get your point but can't agree.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

The SCOTUS nominations in the next term (perhaps 2 or 3) will affect US society for generations to come. Your point is sound and very important.

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Two or three SCOTUS judges can make a MASSIVE difference to us. If Romney had have become POTUS, our slide into fascism would have been assured but we may have a slim chance to avoid that now! What does the latin mean?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17705) 1 year ago

"E tenebris, lux" = 'From darkness, light', talking of which :

Thanx for your comment and strong points & I sort of agree wth hchc's comment too.

e tenebris, lux !

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

THe court already forced us to buy things from one of the big three lobbying industries, insurance. What else do you want them to do in order to be called fascist?

In my opinion we are already there, and if it were McCain who passed this REPUBLICAN plan there would be protests in the street over it.

[-] 1 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

You are right. The SCOTUS maintains that corporations are people and money equates to free speech. There has been a coup in our country as people die but corporations can go on and on and we so most of us are now just salary slaves and potentially traded debt units, rather than human beings whilst our inalienable rights have been usurped as we sleepwalk into fascism. Thank you for your comment.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

They eat, shit and breath air too, we are all more alike than we are different, what's your point?

[-] 8 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

Good grief. My point is that we need much bigger change. We need money out of politics, we need to reinstate Glass Steagall, we need to end the wars and drone attacks, we need to end poverty and reinstate workers' rights, we need universal healthcare, we need to lower the cost of higher education, we need to prosecute the Wall Street banksters that caused the GFC, etc. etc. Yes, the Dems are a teensy weensy bit better than the Reps, but I would argue that the difference is negligible. Are they going to really do any of this?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And why the hell haven't they resolved these decades old problems in the last 4 years.?

Because they are liars! because they don't want to! If they wanted to resolve these decades old problems they could have done it over night.

There all the same!

[+] -4 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

To address your first point Gore supported public funding of elections, did it get him Nader's support? Are you saying all or nothing? He also supported universal healthcare to name two on your list, but you would rather spend your time lying to people by omission.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21309) 1 year ago

You are an Obama apologist. I am not. That's lying. Big accusation, factsrfun. Don't comment to me anymore and I won't to you.

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

just don't respond if it wears on one

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the truth can be tiring

it is helpful to face truth if one wishes to change things

I wonder if enough will have the energy

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Let me be clear I believe the path you promote is death to the promise that is OWS, so we do disagree and I pray OWS supporters WTFU before it's too late.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

when have I apologized? the truth is the truth wither it fits you ego or not

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

Indefinite detention laws

illegal drone strikes

NSA spying on Americans.

Funded war in Iraq as a Senator

Agrees with republicans that Iran is a threat because of "nuclear"

Hired mercenaries

Bombed 6 countries in one term

You may commence making excuses.

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

all made possible by Nader's name in New Hampshire...

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

Look at you with that ignorant excuse.

Absolutely pathetic.

LOL but so standard of an Obama apologist. It's been 12 fucking years since Nader and you blame everything I listed on Nader who is not even in the Federal Government and has not voted on any of the policies I listed. Nader did not take Democrats out of Congress either. Why didn't Obama join Dennis Kucinich and try to impeach Bush for the obvious war crimes?

When Obama appealed for indefinite detention laws - Nader wasn't there.

When Obama announced "Iran is a threat" - Nader wasn't there.

When Obama continually hired mercenaries - Nader wasn't there.

When Obama continually voted YES on the Patriot Act and FISA bills - Nader wasn't there

When Obama continually drone bombs foreign countries - Nader isn't there

And when they finally do bomb Iran - Nader won't be there either.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah right.

ALL the military issues you mention will be ended if we protest the fear mongering propaganda that creates the support for this right wing agenda.

You continue to remain silent on this basic fundamental root.

WE must come together in the street to protest all pols regarding these military actions and rights violations. We must ALSO denounce the right wing fear mongering propaganda that creates support for all these actions.

It's the only way.

Blaming one politician for the symptoms of the problem simply betrays a partisanship that best suited for your efforts to affect the election.

The election is over!

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

I speak out against drone strikes and theft of civil liberties because they are wrong. Not simply because of an election.

Also I was saying Obama was going to win the election dating back to the start of the republican primaries.

You seem to be incredibly confused about why I speak out against the drone strikes, monetary policy, wars, and indefinite detention laws. The president holds a lot of power on these issues. The more I criticize him on these issues and the more others do as well, the better chances there are of him changing his stance for the better.

There is no excuse to sign for indefinite detention laws. There is no excuse to find that a monetary policy giving unlimited resources to Wall Street is perfectly acceptable. Ben Bernanke was originally appointed by Bush. Think about it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

More silence on the root of the problems.

WE must come together in the street to protest all pols regarding these military actions and rights violations. We must ALSO denounce the right wing fear mongering propaganda that creates support for all these actions.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We MUST get into the streets and protest ALL pols for change that benefits the 99%.

All the partisanship is so last week. (you & BW brought up Obama not factsie)

Don't be sore. The election is over. Our work to create change that benefits the 99% continues. Let's put the personal vendettas aside, and the unfair inaccurate blame on one politician to rest.

All pols must be targeted for protest/pressure/agitation.

No? Prove me wrong. Let me see you get beyond the narrow minded anti Obama rhetoric.

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

I'm calling out FRF because he continually pushes the "Blame Nader" lie and other propaganda that takes blame away from the real problems. Corruption and Money in politics. Blaming Nader also takes blame away from the republicans as well. Blaming Nader is the dumbest party hack bullshit that exists.

Next to the excuse of "but he had to sign for it"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The election is over! Your constant blaming of everything on one politician is ludicrous!

Everything you blame on Obama was created by right wing wackos and supported by weak, scared, complicit dems.

Time to get in the street, protest ALL pols for change that benefits the 99%.

Your partisan attacks are immature and neglect the real criminals.

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

I'm not blaming one politician. You and a few others go around on this forum spreading propaganda acting like Obama's shit's clean and then that becomes the topic.

We fully agree the GOP is corrupt. Where we disagree is that many democrats are corrupt too. Which is why that's the topic of discussion.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I suspect TM may be like hchc just here to keep as many votes away from defeating the GOP as they can, TM at least has some decent positions outside of attacking Obama, but hchc is pure right wing attack dog

as far as going forward I think the path is the same as it's always been tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may

http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-do-not-believe-you-can-build-a-movement-on-a-lie/

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

No I don't bother with blame at all, just an observation, perhaps you could point of the issues you listed which does Romney have a position you prefer?

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

I hated Romney because he has the same or similar stance as Obama on all the issues I listed. And many other reasons.

Indefinite detention laws -Obama and Romney

Iran is a threat - Obama and Romney

Privatizing the military via Mercenaries - Obama and Romney

Patriot act and FISA bills - Obama and Romney

Bombing foreign countries with illegal drone strikes - Obama and Romney.

Propaganda - Obama and Romney

Monetary policy that gives unlimited resources to Wall Street - Obama and Romney.

I've been speaking against the status quo the entire time. Only you could read my posts and still somehow think I support Romney.

I do not support anyone who supports these bullshit policies. Get that through your thick skull.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Still blaming Nadar? Get a grip it's been 12 years.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Not blaming anybody just stating a fact, I may think less about it when the planet starts to cool down a bit or when Bush's Wars are finally over which ever comes first. It may take awhile.....

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

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

Was this before or after he helped get glass steagall passed (caused housing wreck) or shipped all our jobs overseas (GATT and NAFTA)?

I cant see someone passing those things, while supporting the others. Doesnt seem to line up.

Perhaps he was just talking out of his ass? Politicians...........

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The repeal of Glass Steagal, & the free trade agreements may have been supported by Clinton & other dems but they are conservative policy 101.

I guess you neglect to mention that & that conservatives created the related bills because you want to protect republicans as always.

The election is over. Time to resume our fight in the street, Protests against all pols for change that benefits the 99%.

Put your anti dem partisanship aside. and focus on pressuring all pols.

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

Free borders is a liberal agenda, not conservative (hence Obama signing three more this past year). Isolation is conservative. They both like free borders though, because it helps the corporations.

No point in having people pressure politicians who dont know what the hell they are talking about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The point of pressuring all politicians is to get change that benefits the 99%. I thought I made that clear! Try to keep up.

And I will repeat again. Free trade agreements are conservative policy 101. Period. Your assertion of conservatives position on isolationism is unrelated. A distraction. It may be true in regards to conservative principles but not American conservative policy in the last 30 years.

Sorry. Your weak effort to cover for republicans is not believable.

Peace

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

You lived through labor battles that Dems claimed to be about, and then went and signed legislation that shoved it up their ass.

And you are fuckin fine with it. Disgusting. I really hope this nation wakes the fuck up soon.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well the dems who fought against the conservative free trade agreements didn't vote for them, genius.

Other Dems did.

Can you understand that concept.? Wakin up yet?

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

Ya, and so did other Republicans. Actually less Republicans voted for GATT than Dems, though not by much. Almost equally. So you support them now too? haha. You are one defiant little troll.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

good night right wing wacko.

Support free trade that creates strong working condition requirements, and strong environmental conditions.

"imagine there's no country"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gatt was approved in 1948. Who cares which party voted how.

I think we can stick with the last 30 years. And my apporoach of criticizing all pols who support bad free trade agreements while acknowledging that the conservatives have been the ones pushing free trade is the right approach. And labor, environmentalists, and there dem/progressive partners fighting free trade agreements (and losing).

Your approach of denying 30 years of reality, and trying to blame dems for bad free trade agreements is dishonest and inaccurate.

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

Who cares who signed it? Are YOU kidding me?

Told you were a fraud. Good night troll.

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

You are refusing to realize that it is corporatism/fascism that has taken over the gov, not conservatism or liberalism. More Dems than Reps in the Senate voted Yay on GATT you moron.

Again, no point in people out protesting who dont know what the hell they are talking about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support liberalism and progressive policy.

I am against the conservative created free trade agreements that always leave out labor conditions, and environmental conditions.

I protest, and denounce all polls who neglect those critical issues.

Peace

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your the one who comes here only to attack dems. I have criticized all dems who support the conservative policies at the root of all our problems.

I have very little interest in the trade deals from 65 years ago.

My focus is on the labor, & environmental issues we must improve around the world. If we can do that with free trade I would support it.

Repubs never fight for those issues. Only dems/progressives do.

I come here to fight for change that benefits the 99%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Conservative policy is at the root of all our problems. I protest all pols who support conservative policies. I denounce any dem who supports conservative policies.

What more do you want.? I think that is fair.

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

Free trade isnt a conservative policy, it never was and it still isnt as evidenced by the DEMOCRACTIC president who is signing them left and right.

Liberalism isnt always good. Grow up and realize reality.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The most important issue is which party in general pushes the freetrade policy. And for 30 years that has been repubs. There have been Dem pols voting for, and dem pres signing them.

I am against free trade that benefits corps with cheap labor and no environmental rules. Otherwise I have no problem with free trade.

The TPP. negotiations began before Pres Obama came into office. Why hasn't he signed it. And why is it repubs criticizing him for not concluding the deal.? Why are dems criticizing him for not killing it.

Are you aware of these facts.? Do facts matter to you. Does it have to be in Wiki before you are aware of it?

And who negotiated the 3 trade agreements Pres Obama signed?. Do you know? Do you care.?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I've already slammed the dems who supported your conservatives free trade agreements!

And I haven't any history. That's you lying about my position. None of the history you presented refutes the reality we've all lived through.

Conservatives have pushed all the free trade agreements in the last 30 years, and some dems always support them.

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

money leaves the system through interest

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

So even though it was all conservatives, less conservatives voted for it than Dems? And then a Dem president signs it? And Truman and Kennedy signed big free trade deals, and now Obama is too? But its all conservatives? Are you dense?

Traditionally- free trade is a liberal policy, and isolation is a conservative policy. The biggest deal of the last 30 yeras, the one that sold us to China, had more support on the left than the right. And was signed by a Dem president.

Eat another idiot pill and go to sleep. Go buy some books on liberalism. Educate. Try to learn. Thats why most of us are here, to learn.

Why are you here? To scream about Republicans? Cant we just turn on the TV and get that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So your BBC article did not refute my contention, did not state liberal or conservatives were behind any particular free trade deal in the last 30 years but did corroborate my assertion about unions opposition (in the 90's burning japanese cars).

Gatt was agreed to 65 years ago! and was replace in the early 90's.

Doesn't refute my assertion.

You got anything else.?

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

So do you have even one piece of Dem legislation to say was bullshit? Even one?

No. You dont. You are a fraud.

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

And who were the presidents in the other deals from way back that the article talked about? Could they be democrats too?!! hahahahaha.

Free trade is a traditional liberal policy, and all Democrat leaders have instituted many free trade agreements.

I mentioned at a GA last year that in response to us protesting about wages, Obama just signed three more free trade deals. Not only shoved it up the unions asses, but also up ours.

TPP is right around the corner. Better get ready to blame conservatives while the Dem president puts his signature on it, along with over half the Dems.

It doesnt need to mention who was behind it, you just have to think about who was in charge at those times.

You dig your own grave, the amount of PMs I get asking why you are here is priceless. I just hope you keep your shallow view of things to this forum and dont go out doing interviews to the news in the name of occupy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

All you have is meaningless insults. You offer historical facts that I don't dispute. Don't have to.

I can recount the free trade repubs have been pushing for 30 years. I've lived through the battles that labor/environmental groups with their dem partners fought and lost with.

You think the history books are more relevant than the reality we've lived through.

Please all you got is stale data, insults, and dishonesty. My game is up just fine. Your the one who is behaving like a spoiled little brat who isn't getting his way.

Have you convinced anyone of the twisted lie that free trade is not conservative policy in America for the last 30 years.?

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

Still denying history? You get insulted so much here becuase you are freakin dense, and really an embarrasment to anyone wants more people to get involved. Because you cant slam the Dems. You cannot point to one single piece of legislation you dont like. You never have, you never will, and you will deny everything.

Do us a favor and go get a freakin education.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Free trade is conservative policy 101. I know that cause I've lived through history for the last 50 years.

You ain't offered one goddamn thing that counters the reality I have lived through.

Fuckin Wikipedia history?. What are you joking.?

You don't know what you are talkin about You are trying so hard to twist the truth to protect your republican paymasters, you probably have begun to believe it.

I would never believe a word you say. You have only ever been dishonest and abusive.

LMFAO. history, indeed.

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

You are such a blind hack. You lived through the last 50 years? Im shocked you even made it.

Disputing if free trade is a liberal policy is like disputing if dergulation is a conservative policy. I wish I was shocked that you are so misinformed, but I doubt you have learned a single thing here. Just show up and repeat the same shit over and over and over...

Its a bit much, dont you think? Go do some research. Stop being a novice and step your game up. You are here enough. At least you could make the site look somewhat intelligent.

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

Would you like me to bombard you with more links that prove the history you are debating?

So I guess Obama and the Liberals were just acting like conservatives when they signed 3 more? You are pretty naive.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Liberalism is something I'm well aware of. I support modern liberal/progressive principles.

I am against modern conservative principles because they ARE at the root of ALL our problems.

Please refrain from the immature name calling,

Do you think you can pursuade me of you position by calling me names?

Or is it that you get a sick thrill from insulting people who disagree with you from the safety of an anonymous internet forum?

LOL. How pathetic

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

I dont get a kick out of it, there are way too many people going around spewing shit that simply isnt true. And doing it only discredits those around you.

We are talking about free trade. Of which, the liberals in gov are to blame, along with the conservatives. But it was traditionally a liberal policy.

Can I persuade you to read up on history? Probably not. Can I call you a moron for refusing history? I think thats appropriate. Ive placed credible information in front of you, and the facts are the facts, and you are refusing to recognize that. Thats moronic. Its symtomatic of the stuff you claim to be against.

And I would insult you if we were sitting next to you and I showed you all this and you came back with the same moronic replies time and time again.

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

A normal repsonse to the free trade and liberalism would be "hmm, maybe it is, I will check into it"... Not your usual blabbering nonsense that only makes the whole site look like a bunch over reactive imbeciles.

The same over reacting shit that destroyed the political conversation in this country.

Stop reacting. Start thinking.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I deny no history. You think if it leaves your word hole it is fact.

It ain't.

You deal with disagreement with childish insults because in fact your comments are NOT based in truth and they do not stand up to the smallest challenge. LMFAO!

Conservative policy is at the center of ALL our problems. Free trade, weak regulations, trickle down tax policies, war mongering military buildups, fossil fuel.

You name it conservatives are on the wrong side. LOL

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

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Moron. Way to through a slew of other issues in your post at the end. Thats what you do. Skew the conversation. This one is about liberalsim and free trade. Deal with the legislation and history you moron

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You can't handle people who don't agree with you. Sounds so republican.

Get over yourself. YOU are wrong. I don't have to call you names. I ain't done that since I'm a child.

And your wrong about "no point in protesting". Who exactly are you insulting when you say they "don't know what the hell they're talkin about"?

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

Im insulting you. You dont know what you are talking about.

This isnt me disagreeing with you. This is you disagreeing with history. Duh.

"You can't handle people who don't agree with you. Sounds so republican." Says the guy who is denying history.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"moron" You resort to name calling because ofthe ipotence of your argument!

We MUST protest if we are going to take the govt back from the corp 1% plutocrats who like the conservatives proudly push the trade agreements you claim to object to.

Protesting is requitred you are against it because you are against OWS?

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

I call you a moron because you are refusing to accept the facts I am presenting. Thats moronic. Dont like it? Stop denying history. Moron.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Whatever history you pull out does not change the modern reality that YOU are denying in a weak attempt to protect your republican paymasters.

For at least the last 30 years In America the republican party has pushed all; free trade agreements. Period.

Dems have supported these conservative policies but it is always dem labor & environmental groups/pols that have fought (and lost) against repubs.

I don't deny the history. I just prefer reality. Why do you deny reality!

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

HEre ya go you fury little mascot:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/533716.stm

So GATT, the big one, had more Democratic support, and was signed by Clinton, which reduced borders which is a liberal policy, but it was conservatives? You are now at the point of embarrasing.

Can you never point to specific pieces of Dem legislation that you dont agee with? You even defend indef detention.

You are one misinformed person. Unfortuntely, there are a lot of you out there.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

by republicans!

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

yep pretty split congress that won't do anything

planned?

Let it Die -- Emilie Autumn

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If people were that smart I think more than spiting government would be done, I think more to do with GOP winning a lot of State houses and seats in 2010 and then the Census.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

allow me to add...

2010 was important because the GOP is not about winning the hearts and minds they are about control, they see America becoming filled with brown skinned people that don't belong here and they ask how can we control them not how can we serve them and then they seek public office, this is not restricted to the GOP on a personal level but they choose it as policy.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

I doubt very seriously that it will change. Which means that in order to respond to it-the people are going to have to change.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 1 year ago

the people are going to have to change. i think you're on to something

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Killing the GOP is a good place to start.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Look at this when the Ds defends 23 and maybe picks up two, the Rs defend ten and maybe lose two, in the gerrymander proof Senate and almost all the GOP House is returned to office we all know that was not the intent, where are all those originalists raising hell?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

We tried to change it in AZ by ballot, we set-up a commission, the GOP here are tying it up in court. Still little things can be done.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Watching the US elections are a trip. Either party is capable of tying something up in court and, in AZ, you can bet the GOP will spend a lot of time on it.

First of all, I think that you are going to have to make a choice. You are going to have to decide if it is more important to campaign for the Democrats or to address the issues. Try not to hate me for a sec.

The national conversations are changing. Headlines are not it. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have demonstrated an inability to answer questions that the public has demonstrated an inability to ask.

Fuck 'em. In theory, this wouldn't have any impact if the finger pointing, mudslinging, misdirection, graft, and shit ended.Most of this is perpetuated by the media who stand to benefit in one way or the other. These are media conglomerates.

As an aside-it cracks me up when I see posts that are all about acquiring "positive media attention" for OWS. Get real. It ain't a-coming.

This means that there are two choices. People either continue to allow the media, the trolls, etc. run the game and the House continues to reflect that while people are pushed and pulled in different directions.

Two- continue to change the dialogue. When we as people take issues out of the hands of the media and out of the hands of the political parties then the tables are turned and they have to respond to us. Now they jump.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

There are many problems, at the heart of most is ego, it is easier to call a pox on all their houses than to do something. If you can't see the difference between the GOP and the Ds you can't see much and there is a real and present danger that must be acted on. There is absolutely no conflict between telling the truth and working to kill the GOP the two are intertwine completely. Do I say the Ds are perfect? Not at all, I mostly just trying to keep America alive right now till we can maybe grow into something decent if "perfect" keeps slipping away.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

The methods remain the same. Democrats and Republicans are parties. More people turn out to vote for presidential elections than any other. They do this knowing damn well that the vast majority of control comes in at state and local elections. Or maybe they don't. Further, I live in an area where there is somewhere around 85 Democratic politicians that have been convicted or are under indictment. Yeah, kill the GOP because the Dems are saints.........prolly not going to work here. At all.

Go back and read the threads after the debates. Read the threads that are dedicated to if you could ask the president or mittens a question what could it be. Ask yourself how many of those questions fit into the description of the actual job. After the debates-how many of those posts are people ticked off because of issues that weren't addressed. The media decided what the issues were or the wrong questions were asked.

If you choose to pursue that path then you need to recognize that you are placing yourself in a propaganda war. Fine. However, every generation finds themselves in a position where they are treading water waiting for better days. Change the conversation at the ground level and it forces the change at the other levels. They need me a helluva lot more than I need them. They need to step up.

And don't kid yourself-I don't want to hear any third party shit either. We have issues that need to be addressed.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Building strawmen helps no one.

You are correct in that I am involved in "the war" because I vote and I do so in such a way as to defeat Republicans, those that don't are just kidding themselves.

I think we need to encourage involvement along with other things.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Hahahahahaha.

Yeah. That's rich.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hmmm - your current discussion - just sparked an idea - If there is no one to support in an election - are there initiatives to support or defeat?

I believe that sooner or later we have to get everyone involved with issues - supporting or opposing.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Isn't that where people are at now?

Start with the issues or rather keep to the issues and it forces the political parties to get in the game. That is how it should be.

I live in one of the most corrupt counties in the US. It has earned that award and won second place in most segregated county. Now, here is the kicker if you walk in and start laying on a bunch of shit about the Democrats.......most people will laugh at you. Third party? More chuckles. It isn't my job to work for ANY party. Fuckers are entirely too lax and need to start stepping up.

I talk to people that are 40 years older than I am and those about 10 years younger. Remove the label of party and then you can actually engage in conversations that follow the money. Most of these people have had careers that have been used as political footballs-----just like everyone elses.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I'm with you GF - if parties can be left out - then real discussion can take place. It was gr8 to see actions to support gay marriage and to legalize pot and to defeat voter suppression in elections across the country as well as moves to support/promote Move to Amend ( actions against corpoRAT personhood ).

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Yes, it was. :D

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34861) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good things can happen when the people get involved to make it so. {:-])

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Jesse Ventura's been saying some great stuff about getting rid of political parties.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The thing is we can either address wealth inequality or not. There is little movement to be made on that front without addressing the GOP. We can face that or not, we can celebrate MMJ and gay marriage, and we should I'd like to see something on climate change but Nader killed that, sometimes what needs to be done is not what we want to do.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

The little things, I think, are what are going to motivate people.

I'm going to go mull this over for a minute.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Right now we have won 4 of 9 seats for the Ds and a fifth is 300 behind and counting, it may have worked a bit, if the districts were constitutional there would of been a sea change.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17440) 1 year ago

Did you see how many TP clowns got the boot?

Ask yourself why in a republican district a blue dog can't win? For all intensive purposes, a blue dog is a republican.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In AL they elected a dead man over a Democratic, once you dislodge reality then all things are possible.

I want real change I just see a path that involves using tools that may be hard to "control" but control is not my aim.

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

don't states decide how to appoint their seats in the house of representatives?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yes they do, that is why the 2010 election was so important the 2020 one will be too, elections matter

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

a State's citizens could vote statewide for their representatives

and the top vote gatherers could fill the federal "house of representatives" seats

something of a parliamentary system of appointment

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

As I understand it in England the parliament is still elected based on top vote getter in a certain area. I'm not saying I don't like it, it's just that we do have a senate for that, now if we were talking big change I would like to see the states go away completely, not too much support for that though.

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

the senate only appoints one top vote getter

second and third place don't get to represent

.

California has 53 members in the US House of Representatives.

If the State appointed the top 53 vote gatherers in all of California,

people could select a Candidate that they want to represent them

with much more than two choices.

.

if

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I understand proportional elections I think they are a good idea, I have for oh 40 years or so, (I was thinking about this one when I was twelve). There are a number of ideas I like but I am unwilling to support a Constitutional Convention and so I like solutions I can push for, like the national popular vote thing i didn't know we could do that without an amendment, this is the closest big change we could make right now, besides killing the GOP and thereby bringing down the two party system, that we could do too...

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

Very important topic. Good call.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Good morning Richard, thanks, popular vote good idea too didn't know we could do it without an amendment, check it out

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The Dems would have to win every one they did this time and all the seats the GOP won by 6.5% or less that would be 19, I think it will take a concerted effort, but OWS may care more about drones than wealth inequality, not that drones don't matter it's just drones in the hands of a future Bush protected by careful selection of the voting pool, that's scary enough to want to do something with your vote, rather than just say something with it, but it's up to you all what you do.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballotpedia_releases_margin_of_victory_analysis_for_2012_congressional_elections

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here is the analysis of congressional districts and margins of victory 12 Rs are within .5%, that won't change much, another 18 are under 10% it would take all of them to do some real change, so OWS and all of America have a choice do we want the change or not?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballotpedia_releases_margin_of_victory_analysis_for_2012_congressional_elections

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8668) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago