Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Great Farce of 2012...

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 7, 2012, 7:17 p.m. EST by Skippy2 (485)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

is over! Another professional Politician leads our country. It is still "our country" is it it not? Why then shouldn't The People lead. I ask that you prepare for the mid-term elections by talking up, aiding, supporting a third party candidate for congress/senate. Begin with family, friends and neighbors. Lets build momentum towards mid-terms and 2016. Independant candidates should be our focus. Local,State and National.

104 Comments

104 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You might want to give that shit a break.

I am becoming increasingly disgusted with this bullshit.

[-] 3 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

GF--So why are you here? I would like the big $ out of politics. I feel the only way to do that is by putting enough Independants in office to make real changes. Are you just lurking? Or do you want to keep the status quo?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You want to push your third party. You need to back off that. Because what you are essentially doing is admitting that if you can't figure out a way to rope in ows or it's supporters that you have nothing. Back off.

You either want to deal with the issues or you want to sell your particular brand of shit. What is it going to be?

[-] 3 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

Nope not selling. Just imagine , instead of electing Professional Politicians who are bought and paid for whores to Big Money . We elect citizen politicians who can actually change something. Not trying to "rope in ows". OWS original stated intent was to get big $ out of politics. Independants can do that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fundamental change for the better will happen through the involvement of the People.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your argument depends on the People wanting to be, and getting, involved.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Which they will do when it comes to the issues and not the political propaganda. Thus the arguments so far provided in participating at this level of politics are dependent on the capacity to sucker in a vast number of people. Again, another group that needs the people far more than the people need them.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Buh-Bam.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

SOME of the people get involved when it comes to the issues. But not ALL. And as the election this week proves, the country is divided almost directly in half on some of those issues.

In order for the overwhelming majority of this country to come to any kind of consensus would mean getting almost ALL of them to "agree" to not only the issue at hand, but on the SOLUTION to that issue.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Remove the politics. Remove the emotional drivel. Remove the media.

I can sit down with people at the opposite end of the spectrum and follow the money. I do it all the time. The key is that at this moment they are engaged. They aren't being treated as if they are ignorant. They are involved. From that point on, they can proffer up ideas towards solutions.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Good luck removing the politics, the emotional drivel and the media. The fact that you can do something all the time, does not equate with everyone else doing it, or even wanting to do it.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

God forbid you actually stick to the issues.

I can see how that could be all bad wrong.

It seems to work phenomenally well for others as well as I. I imagine that might be a bit scary for some. Cannot have that independent thinking going on.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Who" are you talking about when you say "they are engaged" at this moment? Who is the "they" that are involved? The general public? OWS?

According to NBC news, the "world" had to ask GOOGLE who was running for President. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/world-turned-google-ask-who-running-president-1C6894440

I AGREE with you that the whole third party argument is stupid at this point. I AGREE that " You either want to deal with the issues or you want to sell your particular brand of shit. What is it going to be?".

My question is-who are you talking about getting involved? The "People" as in society, or the "people" as in OWS?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

People at the local levels. OWS or not. The vast majority of people that I discuss issues with are just the regular everyday people. Friends and friends of theirs, coworkers, etc.

Many of these people have had prior experience and are more than willing to share that experience with you. What this does is bring knowledge to the table that one may not have had access to. This leads to a deeper level of questioning and workable solutions. Most of these people have had or are involved in careers that are political footballs.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bitsey Bitsey quite contrary.........how does your garden grow?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

It grew very nicely this year thanks. Got it all harvested and "put up" for the winter.

Yours?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ah you are fortunate not to live in a drought area this year?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I live in a dry, semi arid/desert climate. There are plants that grow in such places.

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

My spuds are just coming on, and I can't believe that my strawberries are still fruiting this late in Spring. Pumpkins and watermelons are off and running, and the black zucchini and yellow squash are going fine. Pecans and macadamias are in full bloom, and the mangoes and avocadoes have set so many fruit, I'm hoping for some good rain over Christmas.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You are selling. If you aren't careful, this will kick you in the ass later on.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

How exactly can supporting Independants over big money politicians "kick you in the ass later on"?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Because you are "selling' it", hon.

I am a fucking independent. I'm over it. You want to sell shit right after the election cycle after having a shit load of people spend 24/7 up here attempting to control the conversation to sell their particular brand of shit. And you cannot see how this will kick you in the ass? This is a farce.

[-] 2 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

Your over use of profanity and circular logic indicates low cognative ability. I'll try to make it simple just for you......More Independant politicians elected at mid term and 2016 = fewer big money politicians. Read it slowly and sound out the big words. You can do it!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I am not buying your brand of bullshit. Now, you can sit here and attempt to spin as much shit as you want. But, all you are doing is spinning.

[-] 2 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

You have yet to make a rational argument against my post.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

LOL. You just don't like what I am telling you. This will kick you in the ass. You don't see it yet. You will.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes..it is just imaginary.

Corruption is the problem. And you will never, EVER get the corruption out of politics because corruption comes from PEOPLE.

Take the money out of it. Fine. Then they'll trade favors and legislative endorsements with each other...I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. People who want POWER will pay for it in trade with anything...money, favors, gifts, threats, violence etc. Getting the "big money" out of politics just means they'll use some other form of currency. THAT is the only change you'll get.

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

So then we should not strive to get money out of politics?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You may strive all you want to. You might succeed. You might not. But taking the money out of politics doesn't solve the problem of corruption. Those who are corrupt will ALWAYS find a way to trade favors etc, and at least money is traceable-viewable by the public for the most part.

Taking money out of politics might give you some sense of accomplishment and the feeling that we're "back in power" somehow, but I contend it's a false feeling and that you're wasting a huge amount of time trying to "feel better" rather than actually accomplishing anything substantive.

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

i think the effort is not simply to "feel good". Just because you would minimize the good, valuable effort by describing the effort as "false, & a waste of time", doesn't make it so.

You are mistaken! The effort to eliminate money is necessary to reduce the wealthiest people/corps influence of the peoples government.

You're claim that "at least money is traceable-viewable" is untrue. Clearly you would mislead us into believing it is ok to have all this corrupting money in politics based on the transparency fallacy.

And to suggest that we should not strive to prevent the wealthiest from corrupting the peoples govt with money because the politicians will be corrupted by other means is silly.

Obviously we MUST stop the corrupting money/bribery and deal with the next means of corruption when it emerges unless we can anticipate it, then we can make an effort to prevent that. Certainly we should not "give up" ending corrupting bribery because some other crime may emerge.

That would be a cop out.

Sounds like you support all this corrupting money in politics. ("At least it's traceable") And you clearly belittle & present args against the efforts to eliminate it. (Those who are...corrupt will ALWAYS ...trade favors).

So you are pretty much towing the republican line. I support the opposite.

We disagree.

I stand with all those who fight t take our govt back from the wealthy who have bought it.

You appear to stand with the corrupt 1% plutocrats.

Peace, Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Sigh. Nowhere did I even suggest, much less "clearly mislead" anyone into believing that it is "ok to have all this corrupting money in politics". My point was that "at least" with big money donors being made public-we can SEE where the influence in coming from. There is an evidence trail.

Governments always have been, and always will be, corruptible. READ A HISTORY BOOK. You're trying to fight a symptom, rather than the actual illness. Money corrupts. Power corrupts. Pride corrupts. Arrogance corrupts. As long as there are corruptible politicians, their will be those willing to corrupt them.

HINT-You actually tap danced around what I'm talking about when you said: "Obviously we MUST stop the corrupting money/bribery and deal with the next means of corruption when it emerges unless we can anticipate it, then we can make an effort to prevent that. Certainly we should not "give up" ending corrupting bribery because some other crime may emerge."

What makes more sense? Fighting dragon after dragon after dragon as they enter the castle grounds because the guards keep letting them in....or securing the grounds and regulating/punishing the guards so that dragons cannot get in at all?

But far be it for me to attempt to demonstrate that there are some battles you can easily win, and thus affect change quickly, and some that you cannot easily win, and thus might not affect change for a very long time-if ever. You just go right ahead shouting and proclaiming that the dragons are the real problem.

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

Your "point was that "at least" with big money donors being made public-we can SEE where the influence in coming from. There is an evidence trail." Is not true. That is the misleading part of your position.

Of course the guards (politicians) should be punished. And that can serve as an effective deterrent. We'll need a law against the action. But I won't NOT punish the dragon (corp 1% plutocrats)! Let's make it illegal and put some of those dragons in jail. That would also be a deterrent.

And when the guard let's in some other evil (more corp 1% plutocrats) we punish the guard and that other evil.

Punishment is good. So maybe we agree that you gotta make it illegal and punish all involved.!

No?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You can't make something "illegal" and then punish people retroactively. That's just plain idiotic AND unconstitutional.

And YOUR point seems to be that there is no evidence trail. That we cannot see where the influence is coming from.

IF THAT IS TRUE EINSTEIN.....think about it..... then where in the hell do you get off pointing fingers and accusing ANYONE??? If there is no evidence, then YOU are purposefully misleading people in YOUR position. It's called LYING.

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

I didn't say punish anyone retroactively! So it is idiotic of you to suggest something I haven't said.

My "point seems to be there is no evidence trail". WRONG!! My point was that it is untrue when you say there IS a trail. Some can be traced, Much cannot.

Make it illegal. Catch them all in the act. punish them all (pols & corp 1% plutocrats).

Agreed? Or no?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

YOU are declaring that the "wealthiest/big corps" are corrupting politics with money, while at the same time you are declaring that there is no way to trace where "MUCH" of the money is coming from!

You have to PICK an argument and stick with it. You cannot have it both ways.

So we make it illegal. Agreed.

Since according to you RIGHT NOW-there is no way to TRACE much of it, how do you propose to "catch them all in the act" in the future?????????????

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

You are nit picking. I have been consistent, and enough, plenty of contributions are untraceable.

I'm against the obscenity that is our unfettered campaign contribution system. You say "at least it is traceable" misleading! And to ban it is a "waste of time". Discouraging the banning serves those corp 1% plutocrats who have bought our govt.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

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

We must include tranparency in the law of course.

That would be obvious.

And we know where a lot of money is coming from but not all. And the money that is not disclosed (dark money) Will be coming from the same types so we're halfway there.

Cool? Make it illegal! And punish all involved!? Right?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

NOW you're saying that "we know where a lot of money" is coming from, but not all. Before it was, "some can be traced, Much cannot". Which is it?

How do we "KNOW where a lot of money is coming" from-if it cannot be traced??? You said I was misleading when I said it could be traced...so either take that back while admitting that the only way you could possibly "KNOW where a lot of money is coming from" is if you have EVIDENCE to prove where it's coming from...or admit that you just THINK you know where it's coming from.

Again. PICK ONE. You cannot have both.

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

when I have nothing say my lips are sealed

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

Occasionally matt, what you say in a short sentence is like a paragraph. Excellent statement regarding some of the above.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's nice.

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

not wanting to wait that long

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Just support the after party.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Applying legal power should be the focus http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ . Without it, third party candidates are just as unaccountable as all other candidates. Make all candidates accountable regardless of party affiliation and the problem is solved. The duopoly exists for a reason. The voting majority identifies with it and will always continue to support it. No amount of arguments is ever going to convince the voting majority to cease their identification with their parties. Focus upon what the voting majority actually can agree upon and there will be a chance for change.

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

It's been a farce since JFK. Elections are just about big-business now. What's ironic is, I don't believe what happened to JFK had anything to do with big-business. I can understand people having interest in local elections but presidential elections are a joke.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

Correct about current presidential elections. I say lets take them back by finding,supporting and electing Independants. I know they will not all agree on everything,but they can form coalitians that weild power. Eventually there would be enough of them to take the whole system back.

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

I shouldn't knock presidential elections completely. There's a good chance I'll be voting in 2016. 2012 just didn't matter to me.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

They can only form coalitions with the current powers that be-Dems and Reps. If they form coalitions with Dems...the Reps will hate them...if they form coalitions with Reps, then the Dems will hate them. So how exactly do you envision there EVER becoming "enough of them" to take the whole system back?

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 1 year ago

Independants come in various types. The Independants form a coalition among themselves, giving them more of a voice. The Dem/Reps would have to agree to at least some of the Independant ideas to get legislation passed.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Not really. Legislation gets passed by majority vote. Dems and Reps can always team up together and bypass independents altogether if they want to.

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

It's called Crossing the Floor.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I don't think Bitsey really cares - I think she gets bored and just likes to come here to argue.

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

LOL. I'm just waiting on some rain so I can dig a new pumpkin patch.

There's a tornado warning for Tasmania. Another first for weather forecasting.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

150 miles South of Australia - you are on the west(?) coast?

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

I was, but I was getting concerned about living two metres above sea level. Three times last season we had low pressure systems head right over our house. If the tides were high (ten metre tides up there) we would have been climbing the tank stands to survive. I'm in the mountains on the east coast now.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OK - I used to know geography so much better. My Bad.

I remember back in the 60's in school - and they were talking about pollution and changing weather.

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

Yes, I remember how people would laugh at my suggestions about ocean levels rising. You can drive from one state to another in Australia, and see the old ocean levels hundreds of feet above the highway. Looks like a mountain range, but when you fly over, it looks like the edge of a continent.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Also in my area of the world growing up it never rained in the winter time - let alone rain on into February - they don't put ice skate on cars and trucks and ice melt does not work below certain temperatures. Good Times Good Times.

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

Just watching the weather chart here.

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/national_radar_sat.loop.shtml

The monsoon trough is feeding into a cyclone (hurricane) up in the gulf country, and we should be getting storms and heavy rains tomorrow. Bonus.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Lovely.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

If you can "see the old ocean levels hundreds of feet above the highway" doesn't that indicate that sea levels are LOWER now than they were in the past?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-fall-defies-climate-warnings/story-e6frg6nf-1226483797934

Seems your newspaper explains both the recent "wet/rain" and the lower ocean levels. Seems they fit the La Nina, El Nino historical pattern perfectly.

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

Your link is to a subscriber-only page, and the Australian is a murdoch rag. He still thinks that GDBush did a great job.

As you're fond of pointing out, Betsey, we've had ice ages and hot periods before. The whole of the desert section of Australia was once an inland sea, and there's still areas that are below our current sea level.

Parts of the Andes are now so high in the sky, that it is difficult to breathe up there, and yet the Incans built rather large cities there, which would point to those regions being once down at lower altitudes, would it not?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Not the paper....the information listed in it. Couldn't care less who owns the thing. Here's another link, same story.

http://www.thegwpf.org/sea-level-fall-defies-climate-warnings/

Um....I have to ask....are you saying that the Andes were once smaller mountains or that the oceans used to be so high that the Incas were closer to "sea level"?

The reason I ask is because as far as I know, rising sea levels don't "push" the atmosphere away from the earth...and the reason the air is thinner, and thus harder to breathe up there is because of the elevation of the mountain itself...not how far it is from sea level....

The air is hard to breathe up there for people who aren't used to the altitude...but people acclimate.

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

We ran out of post ops, Betsey. From your link below, just so you see that you're really grasping at straws.

{quote}The 5mm decline was almost twice the rate of the 3mm-a-year average increase recorded over the past 20 years and three times the 130-year average rise rate of 1.7mm a year.{unquote}

With a global increase in extreme weather events (remember Sandy?? it was just last week) I'm not surprised at all that there's more moisture now in our upper atmosphere than in our oceans.

A four degree F rise in ocean surface temperatures in the Atlantic was tipped to be the reason that Sandy wreaked havoc in the Bahamas before heading for Canada.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

First-nowhere did I say that there's more moisture in our upper atmosphere than in our oceans. Nowhere did I read that either.

A four degree F rise in ocean surface temps in the Atlantic??? Since WHEN??? Saying such a thing means that the OCEAN is warming FASTER than the land surface and air temps, you know that right? Show me the data!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Tasmania - is that anywhere near you? I think I heard that tornadoes are kind of rare events in other parts of the world as compared to the USA.

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

We get water-spouts, which are small tornadoes that form over water, and sometimes head inland. We also get willie-nillies, which are small heat-driven tornadoes that can rip the leaves off trees. We thankfully don't get real tornadoes that can lift the bitumen of hiways.

Tasmania is an island state at the southern end of our east coast. It does get lousy weather, but tornadoes aren't usually what they experience.

For the second year in a row, the monsoon trough is extending from the tropical north-west, right across our dry centre, and on down into the roaring forties, and creating very strange weather phenomena.

The denial factory is madly googling to find a precendent.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Well at least our recently elected president and a mayor and a governor have finally come out to say global warming / climate change are real. Some accomplishment - Hey?

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

Yes, I read that. Even the bloomburger commented.

Gotta get those now legal states to start planting hemp.

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

I'm not sure they can. Would have to check. I wouldn't be suprized if a lot of people didn't start to move there. That would send a message.

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

It wouldn't affect me in any way, but it would probably be better for regular smokers to get their choof from open field-propogated crops.

Some of the stuff that's getting produced under lights hydroponically is waaaaaaaay too potent for my tastes.

I've seen it phukking up younger people I know. Too heavy.

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

I know. I smoked some Hawaiian many years ago while I was there. Way way way too much for me. My friends didn't like it either. The hydro stuff they're smoking now would be even more potent than that. It's no wonder Obama is against legalization if he used to smoke that stuff in Hawaii a lot. Last time I tried weed was about 10 years ago and it was just way too strong for me. I said to hell with it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Right-ON - green industry crops and so very very versatile.

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

Henry Ford is an icon in America (and here) but his dream got shattered by corporate criminals.

Time to take back your heritage, and make your children proud of your country.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28150) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Working on it. Thanks for showing your interest. It has become a very small rock that we live on. Too many people do not appreciate this fact.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Henry Ford? The man who hated workers unions? The man who owned the last company to recognize the United Autoworkers Union? The man who made millions during the industrial age manufacturing the combustion engines that global warming activists are telling us are killing out planet?

Isn't that pretty much the "heritage" that OWS hates with a passion and is NOT proud of?

(My children own their heritage and are proud of this country. They just aren't proud of everyone living in it currently)

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm confused.....

Oct 26th 1918?

May 14th, 2009? http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/05/14/73035_tasmania-news.html

August 2, 2007?

"We get reports of a tornado typically once every couple of years in Tasmania."

"Australia statistically has the second most tornados of anywhere in the world, with the US being the most, but given the sparse nature of our population, typically it doesn't really cause damage to urban areas." said Mr Bolden.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-08-02/tornado-sweeps-through-tasmanias-north-west/2520498

And there's actually a place named "Tornado Flat" in Tasmania....

Or are you just saying that the "tornado warning" system is new to Tasmania?

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

You are the canny sleuth, Betsy.

I should get you a job in research.

This, from your first link;

But the company said the weather events that occurred were rare and beyond control.

April's storms also destroyed a great deal of Aurora Energy's infrastructure including 27 poles, 10 transmitters and 120 bays of wire.

Tasmania's west coast is one of the last frontiers, which is why I'm heading there at the end of our Summer next February.

Thanks for the heads up. Tornado alley? You don't say? They are water-spouts, and we do get them on any coastal zone in Australia. We had one hit my home town one Saturday morning. Did quite a bit of damage too. You might like to read my posts, rather than look for hooks you can chomp on.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

It doesn't take a canny sleuth to find out what the facts are.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I know what it's called. So far it's not working well either.

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

I guess they're all in someone's pocket, so it's tricky for them to know which way to go on any issue.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Everyone wants something. Everyone acts in what they believe are their own best interests....and idiots like to pretend that they know what is in everyone else's best interest too.

We are all motivated by something. Be it money, greed, fame, respect, religion, fear, desire etc. But we're not all motivated by the exact same things. As long as you're willing to sell your soul-there's always someone, somewhere capable of paying you what you want for it.

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

Global Highlights The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880. The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average. The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average. ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record. The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

These are global averages. The data from the recent hurricane event has been removed, Betsey. Cue x-files muzak.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"These are global averages. The data from the recent hurricane event has been removed, Betsey. Cue x-files muzak."

From WHERE? What was your source for the statement :

"A four degree F rise in ocean surface temperatures in the Atlantic was tipped to be the reason that Sandy wreaked havoc in the Bahamas before heading for Canada."

You seem to be confused on several aspects of planetary science and history, such as tornadoes occurring in Tasmania historically and how ancient Inca cities arrived at their current location, so my hesitancy to accept any of your statements as "facts" should be expected.

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

From your post below.

Henry Ford? The man who hated workers unions? The man who owned the last company to recognize the United Autoworkers Union? The man who made millions during the industrial age manufacturing the combustion engines that global warming activists are telling us are killing out planet?

Isn't that pretty much the "heritage" that OWS hates with a passion and is NOT proud of?

(My children own their heritage and are proud of this country. They just aren't proud of everyone living in it currently)

I'm talking about Henry Ford, who had a vision for making cars out of hemp fibre, and powering those cars on Hempseed oil.

I'm sure you've seen the videos, Betsey.

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

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

Forget about presidential elections. We have a right that's literally devolving and a left drunk on conspiarcy theories and scams. Forget about taking things back.

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

If you want 3rd party independent candidates then please support these organizations.

https://movetoamend.org/

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.opendebates.org/

As well as other election reform, election day holiday, mandatory voting, open primaries/runoffs.

Of course elections are only part of the effort. We must get into the streets and protest all pols for the above changes as well as many other changes that benefit the 99%.

And of course we must continue the effort of remaking the political system,from the ground up, horizontally, with direct democracy.

Any one know how that is going.?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

Mandatory voting would be a violation of free speech. I am all for some election reform, removal of money, etc. but we do not need a holiday just to vote. How would you propose "open primaries"? Would that not defeat the party system, including third and fourth parties? As for direct democracy, that is an unworkable solution. We need to have a representative type system to run the day to day operations of a government. Otherwise, nothing would ever get done. Direct democracy requires an informed particapatory electorate, which is not likely. We can not even get that now.
I would like to see term limits for all positions in government.

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

Term limits prevents the people from choosing great populist leaders (like FDR).

That's why it is usually is proposed. And implementing term limits through statute takes away the peoples rights to keep a candidate the like/want.

We already have term limits when we have election days.

Any opinion on the movetoamend (anti CU), and anti electoral college link?

Sounds like we disagree on basic ideas.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

Yes, but without term limits we get entrenchment and abuse of power. A perfect example of the problem: congress has a very low approval rating, yet the same get re-elected every cycle. Why do people complain that the governments terrible, yet never actually vote for change? A lot of people would never vote outside of their party, so instead of voting for the best person, they return crooks to the government. Forget the populist leader stuff and give others a chance. Makes it easier to move forward with change, rather than keep the status quo. As you are a progressive, I would think you would agree with that.

I woul like to remove money from politics, but as we have discussed in past posts, it is not that easy to do without severely restricting free speech.

As for the electoral college, we should have more discussion on that. Remember that the design of this is to have a clear winner, but it also has the effect of making many votes " not meaningful". Say your a democrat living in a clear red state. Your vote in a national election is meaningless. Same for a republican in a blue state. This is a problem. One of these days, we will have a large discrepancy with the popular vote vs the electoral college. Maybe there is a way to have it both ways.....keep the electoral college, yet not quite winner take all. Not a division by vote count but divide it in another manner: ratio of actual vote count, and bonus for winning the total state. I would prefer that candidates have to campaign everywhere rather than in only toss up states.

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

I am against statute dictated term limits.

I am for money out of politics. (Money does not equal speech, & corps are not people)

I am against theelectoral colege. One person one vote! Period.

I am for mandatory voting. Civic duty! Just like Jury duty. You can write in Mickey mouse or no consent but you gotta vote. That IS NOT a "violation of free speech" Why do you say it is?

I am for open primaries. Where all parties compete in a primary where all citizens can vote.

I am for direct democracy. We WILL as a society evolve to a system where people vote on legislation regularly. (like referendums) on line I'm sure.

Doesn't sound like we agree on much.

Peace, Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

We extensively discussed before as I mentioned about the speech issues and restrictions on funding an election, and you understood the issues i presented then but now act like you never discussed it. I gave you numerous examples of what would be specific hurdles to try to legislate it. As much as I would like to remove the money influence, again, as you agreed before, it is not as easy as just making statements.

Voting: for example, Suppose I want to protest the act of voting in a particular election because I do not believe the system is working and the candidates are all people I reject. I want to stand outside the polling place and protest my belief. You are removing my right to protest which is a clear violation of my right to free speech. And if you were the person doing it, I would defend your right to do so. While I agree it is illogical to not vote, it is personal choice, not a mandate and should remain that way. Are you going to carry me off to jail when I refuse? Hardly.

Why are you so against term limits. Why not force some change by rotating out the congress members. We put in place term limits on the president, why not the rest? The current problem with congress is that we can't get rid of the mess we have, and the congress reps continually provide pork to thier voters so they stay in office. This is a major problem with the current system. It is a continuing cycle of spend and waste to stay in office. If we remove that piece, some of the wastefull spending on pork barrel projects would stop. We can't keep spending what we do not have. It has got to stop.

Show me how direct democrcacy will work. Most people would never even understand the legislation they would be voting on. For example, Would you be able to take the time to actually read the Health bill. Would everyone have the time? Simple answer: NO. There were Governemnt people that did not even understand it, and they are lawyers so how would they layperson actually comprehend it. Referendums do not equate to legislation.

Open primaries would allow voting blocks to hijack a parties election of a backed candidate. Do you instant that particular party is trying to have their party members choose a candidate for the members party? What is your solution to that? What would be the reason for a primary if everyone is voting for everyone? That is the same as a general election is it not? So why ?

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

You can protest however you like at election time. You still gotta vote. So no rights violation there.

I don't knowwhat you think I agreed with you on but I laid out my position plainly so...... whatever.

Termlimits are bad. If everyone voted we could vote people out. Mostly we must minimize the incumbant advantage.

And I DO NOT support Pres term limits. Repubs imposed that after FDR was elected 4 times! People will (and do) vote incumbants out. We can make it easier & thats all we need to do there.

I don't understand your problem with open primaries but otherwise We appear to disagree on everything. So No need.

Peace, Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

You offer only blank statements, no solutions or counterpoints. Just do this or do that. Doesn't work that way. You state a position, not good enough if your going to debate points. Give me some substance. Your answer on rights show a lack of understanding of the current rulings from the courts. You spoke previously of debating. So let's go. Give me some proper responses instead of "whatever". By the way, you did agree with me on the hurdles of free speech and limits on election funding by individuals., etc. did you forget that or was that conversation with one of your other persona? Everyone voting? Based on what was stated, How does that actually change anything other than the totals? And how do we prevent the cycle of congressional pork to placate the constituents to continually vote for them? Come on VQ. Can you debate as you said you could previously, even when you refused rules? Pick one of the topics.

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

Nothing wrong with my debating. You claim mandatory voting violates your rights, you offer yourdesire to protest at your polling place as proof. I say you can & should protest, as well as vote!

Everyone voting changes everything because the majority of people who do not vote are liberal leaning. This is why conservatives have said for 30 years that low turnout benefits them, & why this year they tried to suppress thedem vote.

Where you been? big turnout is what the 1$ plutocrats fear the most.

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

We have mandatory voting, and the polls open early on a Saturday morning, and stay open until late.

You can opt to vote absentee earlier, or by a postal vote.

You can also write a letter stating why you won't be voting.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

Where is it that mandatory voting is required? What happens if you refuse, as in a protest of the process or the candidates? Here we are free to choose to vote or not, as it should be, though I am not recommending not voting. But I would never force a person to vote.

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

Australia. You will be fined if you don't vote. I think it's fifty bucks.

You can also return your fine with a signed stat dec form explaining why you didn't vote, and you won't be voting again. Your name will be removed from the electoral roll, and you will not be required to vote again.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (358) 1 year ago

I disagree with your system and would never support it. Improve the system so that people WANT to participate rather than by coerced or forced action. Voting is a right, which is a freely exercisable choice. PS. I worked in past years with some colleagues from Perth, but that never came up in our many dinner conversations while in Europe together.

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

Here's the info for you, if you're interested.

http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/voting_australia.htm

Your friends from Perth maybe just accept it because it's been law since 1918.

[-] 0 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 1 year ago

Damn Skippy....

Just thought I say that, sounds authoritative.

Good luck with your independent professional politician scheme. You seem to be quite naive about politics but maybe this is how you prefer to learn. Of course, there are much better methods. One of them is called education. Research your subject. Become informed with facts. Evident truth. Third party candidates are losers, every time. Maybe it would be enlightening for you to figure out why.

Just a thought.

Think before you leap.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 1 year ago

You want the truth? The truth is the American political machine is all powerful. And the few little squeaks from protestors on the Net are meaningless. You have to move your message from here into the mainstream media; even there the message of those critical is ignored, but you can't get there from here. The same is true of a naive third party candidate facing this Congress; it's just wasted energy.

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

The Walls Came Down by The Call (1983)

Americans losing property to banks

healthcare for only those that work or are independently wealthy

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 1 year ago

I don't believe this is my country anymore. In fact, what I have been thinking is we should organize another territorial invasion and move on - the only question - where do we go from here?