Forum Post: If Voting Doesn't Matter?
Posted 10 years ago on Jan. 29, 2014, 7:39 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
And it's all over, and it's all just duopoly?
Why would these guys still be spending such incredible sums of money to affect outcomes?
http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-18/news/46304622_1_house-democrats-electoral-votes-matter
That's just in ONE STATE, kids.
They are not so stupid as to throw their precious money away.
Not getting their ROI is one of their greatest fears.
"Why would these guys still be spending such incredible sums of money to affect outcomes?"
ANSWER: 'such incredible sums of money" is peanuts to them. For the super rich, who control trillions in assets, a few billion is a tiny sliver of their wealth. Besides, their ROI is one hundred fold. For every dollar they sponsor corrupt politicians with, they gain far more back by favorable legislation. The super rich contribute to BOTH duopoly parties. If the democrats were a legitimate threat to the wealthy, why would they contribute so much to them? They own every horse in the race!, so they always win. That's why everything continues to go their way.
Of course to perpetuate the divide and conquer scheme, they must make voting matter for the little people. They must allow the political establishment to dispense rewards and sufferings between the lower classes. Then the media that they own drives the wedge deeper. Using their giant media pulpit for manipulating, diverting, distracting and steering public thought. This allows the population to be more easily controlled by creating deeper divisions. Order out of chaos. Chaos amongst the lower classes, achieves order for the elites.
"What the Democrats and Republicans disagree on is theater to hide what they agree on, By focusing on issues that divide us, the elite keep us attacking each other and not them"
That was an excellent response.
The global fascist elite use "two-party tyranny" to divide and control us.
Really?
How does that apply in Senegal?
Cambodia?
All your doing is attempting to paste your version of American Exceptionalism onto the entire Planet.
It just doesn't fit.
[Removed]
“Oil billionaire David Koch is hosting a fundraiser for millionaire Mitt Romney at his Hampton’s estate this weekend,” the ad begins. “And what would Mitt Romney do for the Koch brothers?,” the ad continues. “Give a new $250,000 tax cut to every millionaire & billionaire. Protect tax loopholes for companies outsourcing jobs. Protect tax subsidies for big oil.” Standing outside the Koch home with the protesters, Southamption architect, Pete DeWitt, 59, said “the Kochs represent everything that’s wrong with the system. It’s their anti-labor, anti-environment agenda I’m protesting, their secret giving to politics. I wouldn’t protest someone like Perelman — he seems fine. I have no problem with wealth and money in general.” The Koch brothers have become synonymous with outside spending in politics in part because David Koch is head of Americans for Prosperity, which has fueled the tea party movement. Americans for Prosperity is a nonprofit group that is not required to disclose its donors and by law cannot spend more than 50 percent of its budget on elections. It has spent more than $6 million on television ads attacking Obama and recently announced a $9 million ad campaign against the president’s health care law. Democrats have highlighted the group’s secrecy. In February, Obama’s Twitter account posted a message asking its 12 million followers to sign a petition “to demand that the Koch brothers make their donors public.” The Kochs also help finance the 60 Plus Association, an advocate for the elderly that favors privatizing Social Security. A nonprofit group called the Center to Protect Patients Rights has funneled $9 million to 60 Plus. The center, which does not have to disclose its donors, is headed by Sean Noble, who has spoken at Koch-sponsored gatherings of wealthy donors, including sharing a podium with Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips.
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2012-07-09/romneys-koch-problem-3-million/
Duopoly or monopoly
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bmXe4aMfRcI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbmXe4aMfRcI
Edit http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/296496/Third-Party-Political-Alternatives-in-the-Age-of-Duopoly/overview
http://infowarboulder.wordpress.com/tag/duopoly/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/t3isz/noam_chomsky_in_the_us_there_is_basically_one/
http://www.care2.com/news/member/412766260/3655304
It doesn't answer the question. It continues to prove my statement about duopoly though.
Interesting that you brought Alex Jones' infowar in on it.
But whatever, it didn't even acknowledge the question.
Ok, my bad on rthe info wars, I never saw it before really, just popped up on Chomsky duopoly search
chomsky and duopoly google search, as did rest of these.
No one's answered the question..
If you can find something from Chomsky that does, please post it on up.
Not an entire book, or an entire speech. Just what answers the question.
I'll reply to self
Use strategic voting http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/noam-chomsky-from-the-strategic-mind-to-the-radical-politics-of-imagination/
Like voting for - Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant ?
Right
Also on Strategic Voting - it seems the safe bet for all - would be to vote against money - SO - vote for the candidate that has no money - no money of their own and no money to run a campaign. The cumulative result has got - Just Got to be better.
it is because people can leverage politics with excess money that voting doesn't mater
but the problem is much deeper than the rich footing the bill for the campaign
on a daily bases in the economy, they determine what works gets done and by whom
They use the money to buy media, to do the leveraging.
If they weren't concerned about what would happen if they quit spending it, they wouldn't.
I think they like controlling it
if the did not continue to put money into the economy
while extracting through rent, tax, profit, interests, and fees
they could not control the market
I'm sure that's part of their motivation, but why spend all that much more to affect voting outcomes, if they didn't need to?
they need to circulate restricted money to get they population to work for them
Wait? What?
Did you send them a resume?
they know who I am
I'm not sending those full of excuses another copy
everyone knows the game is rigged
they just want us to pretend that it isn't
Ford's still hiring.
In fact they agreed to hire more of the long term unemployed.
I heard there is new technology
where cars would send a signal so other cars can detect there proximity
those preventing many accidents due to human failure
but not mechanical failure or excessive momentum
which the radio called (excessive momentum) alcohol and drug influence
the world is full of propaganda
how do they expect to be taken seriously when they lie for morality ?
"(excessive momentum) alcohol and drug influence"
Probably truer than we realize.
You could help them design detectors
cell phone technology is where they should be looking
did they need anymore help?
when do I get paid ?
Not until you get the job..............................:)
[Removed]
Why would these guys still be spending such incredible sums of money to affect outcomes?
E-freakin-zactly
I think I'l be waiting a long time for a cogent description of how that works.
If voting doesn't matter? How did the good Councilwoman get on the city council?
Good question shooz, "How did the good Councilwoman get on the city council?"
The "good Councilwoman," who you pandering-ly praised for the wider audience of a News Item thread saying, "She has my respect", ran for office in a city that had more enlightened people who knew the two party system is a duopoly, hence they had the chutzpah to vote for her.
That above "respect" quote from you!!...came despite the fact that she denounced President Obama several times.
So I guess my question is, 'why don't the people on here who 'denounce' President Obama on a regular basis have your respect??
What's the difference shooz?...well other than you as moderator allowing the most vulgar attacks by your accomplices on people who feel the same way about President Obama as the "good Councilwoman", Ms Sawant does??
You certainly know how to pander shooz, and your hypocrisy is clear.
Do You have a quote?
Perhaps that's the way it is in Seattle. I don't live there. Do you?
Here in Michigan, I've demonstrated stark differences.
Never saw a single comment from you.
Lots of folks attacked me just for posting about what's happening there.
Some of those folks posting on Obama have my respect, others don't have an ounce.
If you don't like the way I moderate, there are other forums out there for you post on, and I'm not the only one modding here.
Your assumptions are misleading.
In you, I now detect a formerly legitimate poster.
Speaking of hypocrisy.
What were your former usernames?
All the posters here who couldn't get enough of the Councilwomans comments on Obama, didn't say a word about her closing comments on the way forward.
I'm thinkin' that includes you, because there's not a single comment from you in either of the threads.
Now the other GLARING question is about who's actually pandering, after all this is thread about Koch influence, another subject you've never commented on..
So who is it, you're pandering to?
As usual, more of your diversionary, delusive drivel to avoid answering the question truthfully.
Diversionary?
Excuse the fuck out me?
You didn't address the question of the OP in least way.
You didn't address what I said about your interpretation of the good Councilwoman's speech.
You won't say what your former usernames are.
No my friend, that's YOU being diversionary.
Indeed, dissmissve over that lying word, duopoly.
So thanks for proving me correct again.
You've even lied about what you've posted in other threads. That's divisive too.
Who are you to conclude there is no duopoly? There isn't a bigger scam being pulled over the people than meets the eye?
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and having a strong hate for our entire system is what spurred the growth of occupy.
And then the duopoly.....errrrrr......two parties used their henchmen (police) to shut it down.
Everyone is entitle to their opinion on the level of corruption in this government. Some think its only one side, others think its deeper than that.
Who are you to tell them they are wrong?
Wait? What?
You just changed your name ...again???
Who are you to get hung up on a single word.
A word that doesn't answer the question posed.
Don't feel bad, no else has managed to answer that question either.
BTW. reality, isn't subject to opinion.
[Removed]
Again, you are leaving yourself as the sole determiner of reality.
If you want this place to work in a productive manner, you have got to chill out with this authoritarian nonsense all the time.
The comment sections of articles posted by grass roots activists are just as important as the articles themselves.
If your goal is to help further the mood of dissent in teh country, you need to chill out.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sawant+duopoly&oq=sawant+duopoly&aqs=chrome..69i57.3089j0j1&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
You're still using the term just like I said it's always used.
As a means of dismissal.
Now if instead of attempting to dissuade, please answer the actual question.
Every post that doesn't do that lends credence to what I said in the first place.
not one post here has answered that question.
[Removed]
You're not going to get one.
From a prevaricator? Of course not.
Check this out: http://occupywallst.org/forum/slapping-down-prevarication-this-is-sure-to-be-a-f/#comment-1020401
[Removed]
[Removed]
The corrupt duopoly increases their own personal wealth by helping the 1% plunder and offshore what remains of the 99%'s nation. The 1% have a monopoly of the duopoly. Then their media convinces the voters that they only have a two party choice.
Fracking, TPP, Fast-tracking control over to corporations, attacks to our net neutrality. legislation written by corporations, unfunded wars and global exploits. Etc.
The 99% are forced into austerity to compensate for the bailouts of the 1%'s TBTF banks and the Globalist's hegemony agendas. And the CNN band plays on, while the ship is sinking.
That's a lot of opolies, but it still ignores the actual question.
Please re-read the OP.
So, what's your definition of "duopoly," just out of curiosity?
It's meaningless. Any possible definition is a dismissive trick bag.
Now that I've answered.
Will give you give your opinion about why they would spend all that money to affect outcomes if it actually was?
Please notice, that i'm being non-partisan here.
Give me the non-partisan answer.
It's all about power, and your links don't really disprove duopoly in any way. In fact, from your second link:
"All Votes Matter was headed by William Sloane, a former chief counsel for Pennsylvania’s House Democrats, but most of the support for the proposal came from Republicans . . . "
Most of the support came from Republicans, which means some of the support must have come from Democrats.
Those of us that believe in a duopoly don't believe it means "both parties are the same." It's more a case of both parties working, sometimes in conjunction, for the benefit of the elites, banksters and corporations to the detriment of the electorate. That neither party represents us anymore but rather they represent the 1%. They may throw us a bone every now and then, but that's about it.
And with all due respect, you'll never convince us that it's an illusion, especially when the likes of Chris Hedges, Matt Taibi, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Reich, Max Kaiser and many, many more people more qualified than you or me talk about it all the time. In fact, Ms. Sawant even alludes to it in her response to the SOTU speech:
"...Neither party is capable of solving these problems and that they fundamentally represent the same interests, the interests of the super-wealthy and big corporations. . . Both parties bow down before the free market and loyally serve the interests of their corporate masters with the only difference being in the the matter of degree . . . "
Edit: From your first link:
"Charlie Gerow, a Republican political consultant and All Votes Matter's spokesman at one time, . . . noted the organization had both Republicans and Democrats on its board . . . "
And:
"Though it was eventually sidelined, the legislation caused an uproar. Democrats called it "vote rigging" and contended it was to help the Republican nominee in the 2012 presidential election. Some Republicans worried it would also spur Democrats to be more active against GOP congressional candidates in competitive districts."
In other words, there were Republican and Democrats that were for this bill, as well as Republican and Democrats against it.
You can't disprove, what doesn't exist.
Like I said. any possible definition is a dismissive trick bag.
The onus?
Is to prove it exists.
that's been a total fail.
This would've been an okay post, and the links are worth reading, but your big mistake was conflating this with "proof of no duopoly." I suggest next time you want to spout that no duopoly nonsense, at least find some links that don't use the word "bipartisan" or say "Democrats were also involved," lest you make yourself look foolish.
In fact, you should probably give up harping about it because, #1, your fellow Democrats already agree with you and, #2, the rest of us know better and I doubt you'll find any converts here.
You completely ignored the Democratic involvement in your very own Pennsylvania links. Jeremy posted a link not that long ago showing significant Democratic involvement in Michigan, which you also completely ignored, and you constantly ignore Dem shenanigans at the federal level, like the bipartisan agreement that led to Obama's much-touted domestic energy policy which opens up wide swaths of the US and arctic to drilling, fracking and resource exploitation (what's your opinion on that, by the way?).
In other words, proof of a duopoly is all around you, you just choose to ignore it. You use "Libertarian" as a code-word for "Republican," thinking it masks your true leanings, but perhaps if you didn't draw a bulls-eye around a capitalized R in the middle it might've worked. As it is it doesn't fool anyone. And finally, your unwarranted, unfair and vicious attack on Mike Peake two weeks ago all add up to one thing. You're a Dem or a Dem apologist, so of course you have to deny the existence of a duopoly.
Personally, I could care less about your political leanings, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're fooling anyone.
Thanks, I thought that you laid out the reasons and examples for why you thought our two party system is a duopoly very well, not that I had to be convinced. What the hell is a "dismissive trick bag"? Do you know?
That's a good question. I believe calling it gobbledygook is right on the money. None of the comments are "dismissive" since duopoly is mentioned in the OP, although it's not the focus of it, and as far as "trick-bag" he must have his own definition. Where I grew up, a "trick-bag" wasn't something you used, it meant getting someone in trouble, as in "When he told my wife I was at the bar and not the office, he put me in a trick-bag."
Yes "gobbledygook" is an apropos term. I haven't even heard of using "trick-bag" like you, but I think we may have called the bags we used for trick or treating, 'treat-bags.'
[Removed]
It may be mid-Western slang, I'm not sure.
You mean, you're both corn huskers?
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that, heheh:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=corn+husker (check out #2 on down)
Although I did live in Nebraska for a short time.
To me, anyone west of the Hudson & east of the La-La Land is a CHer,, but I'm not parochial by any means.
Yeah, I just threw that link in for a late-night laugh. Me and shooz are both citizens of the Corn Belt.
[Removed]
You've both dismissed the actual question.
On the other dismissive front, You've both used it as an excuse for.....
No more thought required.
Actually, I did answer it. I said "power." For a more in-depth explanation, see 1776's answer, which I fully agree with:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-voting-doesnt-matter/#comment-1020556
Peanuts, isn't an answer.
nor an explanation.
They wouldn't need the power if your beliefs were true.
[Removed]
The "actual question" seems to be whether our current two party system is a duopoly or not. This poster, gno and I believe it is, and you do not, right? Like I told him, he gave good reasons and provided good examples as to why it is a duopoly. You however have not done that in proving that it is not a duopoly.
So please prove to me with well thought out reasons and good examples on why you believe that we have a well functioning two-party political system and not a duopoly. This time the 'burden of proof' or "onus" is on you! And remember, "You can't prove, what doesn't exist."
That wasn't the question.
That was the dismissal.
Ok, so what was the question, or better yet let's just go with this question on, why you believe the current two party system in not a duopoly. I think most rational people would think an answer like, calling it a "dismissive trick bag" or anything similar to it is not a well thought-out response or answer. Rather they would most likely see it as gobbledygook.
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term OP?
Let me know which it is.
[Removed]
No it's no joke, but your habitual use of the phrase "dismissive trick bag" (with little else) in defense of there not being a duopoly is hilarious. And it shows that you don't really have a defense.
As for the "OP" as to whether voting matters, I suggest that you read 1776's most excellent comment, and as to whether there is a duopoly or not I suggest that you reread gno..'s well thought-out comments.
I've heard rumors and now seem to be witnessing that the word duopoly drives you crazy. Is that true?
Umm, since it wasn't the actual question, it's NOT ME who's going batty over the term duopoly.
It's been used extensively in this thread alone as a means of dismissing the OP's question and indeed also as a means of dissuasion/avoidance, of that question.
Where did you hear those "rumors"?
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
One big trick bag, just like I said.
Wasn't it you who got pissed off at me and called me all kinds of names for pointing out to you ALEC's involvement in your home State?
Yes.
It was.
Would that make you libe(R)topologist?
If you would stop looking for idiotic, overused invectives, you might begin to understand what I've been actually been saying all along.
It would appear, that that is not your aim though.
As you've done nothing to clearly prove it's existence.
If you be so kind as to demonstrate how it works along with ALEC in State.
That would be useful, but I fear you have no intention of doing anything of the sort.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with being a Democrat. Most my family and friends are Democrats. It just gets a bit annoying when you people constantly vilify those of us that aren't.
As far as me getting indignant over you posting ALEC links about MO, absolutely untrue. In fact, you posting info about ALEC and the Kochs is one of your endearing qualities that I've given you credit for on more than one occasion, and you know it because we've had a variation of this conversation before. So your contention is either a scurrilous lie, another hallucination, or an honest mistake. I'll give you as much of the benefit of a doubt as I can muster, and go for "another hallucination."
See, that's the thing, shooz. When you're on-point, you do a pretty good job. It's when you start your incessant pissing and moaning that you fall flat. You are correct on one count, though. It is not my aim to fall into lockstep with your one-sided worldview.
How would I prove duopoly at the state or local level? Well, I don't know shooz, since you're hell-bent on ignoring Dem involvement at any level (as proven by this thread), how could I? But the fact that you would ignore such information notwithstanding, it is a coincidence that you ask about it because I'm just about to break open a book which discusses that very subject. It's a bit dated, published in 1973, making it pre-Powell memo (full implementation of anyway) and therefore lacking to a certain degree, but from the excerpts I've read so far, there's no reason to think Karp's theory wouldn't fit a post-Powell memo model. I posit that it would be a perfect fit, Koch brothers included. Here's a couple quotes from Karp's book:
"When Democratic insurgents in Connecticut -- former supporters of Eugene McCarthy's insurgent bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968 -- succeeded in nominating one of their own, Reverend Joseph P. Duffey, in the 1970 Senate primary, John Bailey, the state boss of the Connecticut Democratic party, had former Senator Thomas Dodd run as an "independent" to split the Democratic vote and ensure the election of a Republican. In Vermont, in that same year, the Democratic bosses could not prevent the Senate nomination of former governor Philip Hoff, who had also supported McCarthy in 1968. Since his election would have strengthened the nonbossed fragment of the losing Vermont Democracy, the party bosses openly campaigned for his Republican Senate rival. This is nothing new. Throughout the years between 1918 and 1922, insurgent party candidates imperiled so many state party organizations in the West that dumping elections became a virtual routine."
And:
"In 1956, Richard Daley, Democratic boss of Cook County, was still consolidating his hold over the Illinois party, and he feared that any Democratic governor might stand in the way. Unfortunately for Daley, open scandal in the Republican administration made the election of a Democratic governor highly likely. To help ensure defeat, Daley gave the nomination to a machine hack with proven lack of statewide appeal, namely the former Cook County treasurer. By mid-September, however, when it became clear that the Democratic candidate was faring well, the newspapers were mysteriously provided with proof that the former Cook County treasurer had been fiddling with public funds. Having supplied the proof, Daley now indignantly demanded that the guilty man step out of the race. In his place Daley put up an even more obscure figure, who averted danger to the Democratic organization by narrowly losing."
I believe it was FDR that was quoted as saying "In politics, nothing happens by accident." Consider those words carefully. Burn them into your brain, because FDR, a lifetime politician from a family of politicians, knew whereof he spoke.
And another quote, just for you: "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
What was the question?
I have to ask, because you, like almost all the adherents, have pretended it wasn't asked at all.
Nope hung up on ONE term (duopoly) has blinded you to that actual question.
So I guess I could add distraction and dissuasion to it's trick bag.
Your final quote is quite accurate as introspection, though you're likely too blinded to understand that.
[Removed]
Really?
Let me take a quick peek.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-kochtopus-reaches-out/
Nope, not a single word of support, nor understanding from you.
Lots's of auto blocked comments from former members of your attack the Dems team.
So you lied about that too?
About how it's OK.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
"Thing is, Occupy is not about playing inside the system. It's about accepting people of all political affiliations by focusing on common issues we all worry about. That's why I cringe when I read the Democrat co-opters here breaking Occupy philosophy by attacking people and calling them right wingers. It really hurts OWS."
I fully agree, although I have no problem with Occupiers working within the political system, if that's their wish. Keeping the pressure on from all directions can't hurt, and voting can be used to make a statement.
Good answer, reviving the old paradigm of left vs right will only ensure that nothing changes as that's what the criminal eite foster to stay in power. Did you see 1776's comment above? I thought he hit the nail on the head with that comment.
Yes I did see 1776's comment and agree completely with it. I meant to comment on it, but got side-tracked on other things. Right now I'm working on a couple posts I'd like to put up.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Here let me help.
JP Morgan Employees Join Goldman Sachs Among Top Obama Supporters
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/jpmorgan-employees-join-goldman-sachs-among-top-obama-donors.html
In fairness though, I'm sure it was a similar story for Romney.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Voting doesn't matter until enough people wake up to the ruse. Until then, things stay the same and the current benefactors amuse themselves with how evenly they can divide the people.
Who benefits if things stay the way they are now?
Huh, meaning what?
Voting doesn't make any difference?
Tell that to Michigan.
Tell that to women in Texas, that will soon have to drive 5 & 1/2 New Hampshire's to find an abortion clinic.
I beg to differ.
Voting matters, almost everywhere we have the privilege of doing so.
It makes minimal differences. It doesn't lead to the big changes Occupiers want.
Also voting strips you of power since it forces you to legitimize the system. We want big changes. We want to change the system.
Voting won't bring in socialism.
Hmmm, so in your minds eye, Occupy should sit on it's ass until it can instantly get what it wants??
You're weird.
Would you like me to post some links disproving your decision to speak for Occupy?
Voting makes differences........every election.
Now.....if you would be so kind as to explain why misers the likes of the Koch's would spend incredible sums to affect vote outcomes, if it would make no difference..
That's the actual subject here.
not some meaningless rhetoric, where you get to pretend you are Occupy.
You're not. Neither am I.
If you can't explain it, just admit it and move on.
[Removed]
Nope never said that. Why would you come to such an idiotic conclusion?
We should all strive to create the better world right now. There are many things we can do. We can keep protesting for one. I would start the protests again. Another idea is to start anarcho-syndicalist type businesses to show that it's possible to organize a world outside of normal capitalist structures. Perhaps we could start an Occupy Magazine.
We could also organize classes or discussions around various subjects. Occupy could go around high-schools to give seminars.
Occupy never played into politics. That was a very good thing. We don't want to legitimize the corrupt system, we want to change it.
The big mistake Occupy made was that it did not organize itself to be sustainable. It blew the 500,000$ it got in donation money. It should have used part of that money to create Occupy businesses using anarchy syndicalism, Like the magazine, or giving classes in schools, maybe tiny house building classes, etc.. anything. They could have charge a fee, then share them profits. This way, a core group of Occupiers would have had a job. The way it was, it was bound to end even if the cops hand't confiscated the parks. People could not have kept living there forever without any money coming in. Had they created jobs everything could have been different.
Still, I don't think it's too late. We could start Occupy again with a similar model. Creating anarcho-syndicalist businesses is a great way to form communities.
I did just that here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-voting-doesnt-matter/#comment-1020628
Playing into politics is much different then pretending voting doesn't matter.
No one's going to tell you not to vote.
What makes you think they blew the money?
and what does any of this have to do with why the Koch's would throw away their money?
On what I MUST assume, you assume are unnecessary elections.
Stop pretending you explained anything at all.
[Removed]
I've always thought the money gets funneled and diverted into some pocket? Or I ask myself all the time why companies spend billions to advertise to people who are going broke and can't afford their crap but they still do that (but ads are a write off no?) Are election donations a write off now? Fuck me - I think I might have found the answer - anyone know if that's the case? Influence and Bribery rolled into a Deduction ???(always imagine the worst thing you can think of and pretend it's true - sadly it probably is)
ALMOST, if not every entity in the SPN is a 501c tax deduction..
Not to mention most of the think tanks.
Think tanks, that through other 501c entities blast you with all those negative campaign ads.
all sorts of tax deductions all down the line.
You didn't think they actually give to poor people any more than their PR department says they have to for appearances, did you?
no obviously I didn't think that I'm a cynic - so if I'm understanding properly - they funnel the money through the charity? The charity pays no taxes on it (essentially they pay themselves) to pay the politician to make them money...(but if they back both parties?) which they dothen what's with the kabuki dance (I mean I get the bribes) but the candidate has to use the money for the election - not like they can put it in the bank for rainy days...I'm trying to understand this process what's in it for the corporation why not just lobby (what's to say the candidate is going to return promises - are they going to break the now presidents knees?) Or is it that the corporations give the money to the candidates charity which pays said candidate their administrative fees of running the charity and now they have laundered the bribe? or are they basically paying to put a candidate that will do their bidding into office (or is it more like a gamble) hmmm - I'm not that smart on this - I will have to think on it or read up - know any good links?
Get this correct,
The SPN is a (R)epelican't network, and it's HUGE.
You won't tell me what State you're in, but you can bet they know exactly where.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/12302/
As investigations found out just how HUGE?
they had to make a separate web site.
http://stinktanks.org/
Things don't work the way you think they do.
they control voting through money
Money is speech.
Poor beleaguered corporations are people too you know.
Their human lessors, feel as though they are being stripped naked, loaded onto box cars and shipped to remote pens without access to their money.
One of them said that, just other day.
But wait, if corporations are people, what does that make humans?
This is meaningless. Of course, the 1% fight between themselves for power. The Republicans and Democrats will spend a lot of money to win over each other so that certain people get more power than others. It's a fight between themselves, not for the people. For us, for the 99%, it doesn't make much of a difference who's in power. The Democrats and Republicans are two heads on the same evil beast. It's not because those heads fight over food that they aren't one evil beast.
The fundamental idea of Occupy is that we don't need these people. We can organize society by ourselves. That's where the real power lies.
Voting is bad because it legitimizes the system. We don't need that system. When you understand that is when you gain real power. Then you don't care about voting because you know you can change society yourself. You don't have to wait on corrupted politicians to do so.
I was with you until you got to the voting thing - whaa ...huh?!!!!
The REASON our votes don't matter is because elections are privately funded - NOT because we have elections! (we need to overturn unlimited campaign funding and publicly fund elections) as well as overturn corporate personhood and prevent corporate lobbying.
Elections are crooked and we need Independent UN Election Supervision. Kshama Sawant and Bernie Sanders were 'voted' in right? People need real options and then they'll vote and consider that voting is just the bare minimum that we need to do in a democracy anyway. Also you just might be interested in http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/how-dems-learned-love-super-pacs-citizens-united . Never Give Up! Occupy Democracy! Solidarity.
We agree. I mean in the context of the current system voting is bad because it legitimizes that system. Of course, in a proper system, voting is fine and needed. Voting is good when it works. It's an important element of democracy. Yes, like you say, the system is corrupted because it is bought. Get money out of politics - reach a stage when politics are not corrupted - then I agree voting makes sense.
But now, with the corrupted system, I think a person should spend their time protesting, writing about anarchy, or something of the sort instead of voting. Time better spent.
I always vote to show I am active (it's a marker that society is listening) even if I have to choose the lesser of the two evils...in the meanwhile - wholeheartedly protest - communicate - report!!!
Although you might have the element of surprise by not showing up (good thought)
Perhaps it's you who's corrupted?
http://www.occupy.com/article/privatizing-our-vote-ultimate-crime
http://www.occupy.com/article/our-legacy-discrimination-%E2%80%93-and-why-constitution-must-guarantee-right-vote
http://www.occupy.com/article/too-fat-vote-supreme-court-weighs-gutting-voting-rights-act-1965
http://www.occupy.com/article/no-one-america-should-have-wait-7-hours-vote
http://www.occupy.com/article/koch-brothers-tell-employees-vote-romney-or-face-consequences
http://www.occupy.com/article/editorial-vote-every-day
http://www.occupy.com/article/vote-victory-fracking-banned-three-colorado-cities
http://www.occupy.com/article/target-election-fraud-not-voter-fraud
Now, what were you saying?
[Removed]
You're bad.
No real explanation.
Just rhetoric.
Just the usual duopoly trick bag.
meaningless.
[Removed]
Pathetic communists shooz and Bimbo Friday, still blaming America's problems on the Koch brothers. Give it a rest you ignorant hippies. Suck my Koch.
Let's hear what you attribute it to........
Or.
If you would prefer.
Give us your pearless review on how the Koch's have nothing to do with anything whatsoever.
I hate doing a "pearless" review, but if I have a good apple.. that's almost as good.
That's what I thought.
That you were somehow related to frenchyfuqua.
Nope, not me! He did set you up well though. I see that you are still being careless with the truth. Anything goes in your little World, right?!
So in your book, calling me childish names is a "set up"?
A "set up" for what exactly?
[Removed]
Lighten up! Please feel free to make light of a mistake in my spelling (it's coming) where the word takes on a whole different meaning. I thought it was as funny as hell as it reminded me of the time our local super-market advertised "erotic kiwis"..lol I would imagine they sold quite well...;-)
We'll get to the more contentious issues between us very soon.
If I were any lighter, I'd have to velcro myself to the chair.
Now, about that alleged "set up"?
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]