Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

    The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority | Politics North

    Text is my own.

    A lot has been made of the lack of clear demands given by Occupy Wall Street. Most of the demonstrators and their supporters have seen this as the mark of a true grassroots movement, one that has yet to be co-opted by any political party. And while no absolute demands are being made, this doesn’t mean there are no goals. By all accounts those goals appear to be addressing the brutal income inequality in the U.S. and fighting corporations that have become all too powerful, namely the big banks on Wall St.

    These are very lofty goals, ones that will take years, if not decades to reach. It stands to reason that in order to get started, you need to have political representation in congress that is sympathetic to your cause. The problems facing America today are joint creations by both parties over the last several decades. Republican trickle down economics from Regan to George W have led to the top 1% benefiting immensely from an unfair tax structure. NAFTA and deregulation signed under Clinton may have contributed to good times in the 90s but ultimately came home to bite everyone in the form of the crash of 2008.

    Both parties share blame but both parties are not actively looking for solutions. Democrats seem to have learned their lesson from passing bad legislation and have changed their tune to favour taxing the wealthy in the form of the “Buffet Rule” and regulating Wall St. (Dodd-Frank). Democrats in general opposed the extension of the Bush tax cuts and favour the President’s jobs bill. Republicans favour keeping the Bush tax cuts, oppose Dodd-Frank and are still trying to deregulate and cut taxes on the wealthy even further at almost every turn.

    It stands to reason that an attainable first goal of the protestors would be to re-elect Barack Obama, hand the Democrats back control of the House and have them keep the Senate. This wouldn’t fix many of the structural problems facing America but would likely result in an initial wave of favorable legislation to help alleviate the immediate crisis. Afterwards longer term goals could be pursued such as the fight to get money out of politics altogether which already has overt 200,000 signatures.

  • #2
    Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

    The preceding post was not authorized by nor paid for by Obama 2012.

    But it could have been...

    ?


    • #3
      Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

      You had one, and no one liked what you did with it.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

        Danny is always good for a few laughs. He's basically Barry Hussein, Jr. His entire post is just talking points jammed together about how "the rich have gotten out of paying taxes for too long! And so, we now realize it and we're going to start taxing them! Also, corporations are bad!" It's like how Barry keeps making the same old tired speech over and over about "pay your fair share! Pay your fair share! No, pay your fair share!" And it's funny because Democrats realized that's going over so great that they had to raise their definition of "rich" from $250,000 to $1 million because the old class warfare saw wasn't getting enough traction. Like, $250,000 people were like "uh, hey, he's talking about me!" and so Democrats had to go "oh, ha ha, no no, hang on ...you get to be poor, too. Vote for us plz?"

        Who is he kidding where he's pretending that the OWS people aren't trying to get Democrats elected? Oh, yeah, they're "independents" who are just concerned for America!! Yeah!

        ?


        • #5
          Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

          I came across this video of an Occupied gathering in Atlanta.

          Occupy Atlanta Silences Civil Rights Hero John Lewis! - YouTube

          If you don't watch the video, it basically amounts to the Occupiers deciding that congressman John Lewis [of black civil rights fame] isn't worth listening to. Or they decided that 'it's unfair' that one person's opinion be more highly valued than an others. Can you imagine the outrage had a Tea Party gathering similarly dissed a prominent black civil rights activist?

          But it's all good. The leftist Occupiers are held to a different standard.

          And they do an excellent job of parodizing themelves as loons in the process. Truly, these people are funny until they get into power.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            A lot has been made of the lack of clear demands given by Occupy Wall Street. Most of the demonstrators and their supporters have seen this as the mark of a true grassroots movement, one that has yet to be co-opted by any political party. And while no absolute demands are being made, this doesnt mean there are no goals. By all accounts those goals appear to be addressing the brutal income inequality in the U.S. and fighting corporations that have become all too powerful, namely the big banks on Wall St.
            And since the Democrats are in the back pocket of Wall Street (right next to the Republicans), why do you think this would be any improvement?

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            These are very lofty goals, ones that will take years, if not decades to reach. It stands to reason that in order to get started, you need to have political representation in congress that is sympathetic to your cause. The problems facing America today are joint creations by both parties over the last several decades. Republican trickle down economics from Regan to George W have led to the top 1% benefiting immensely from an unfair tax structure. NAFTA and deregulation signed under Clinton may have contributed to good times in the 90s but ultimately came home to bite everyone in the form of the crash of 2008.
            So, both parties created the problems, but you want to hand over complete, unchecked power to one party. No, thanks.

            If you want your own country to become a tyranny of the majority, enjoy. But since you don't live here and don't have to pay for your recommendations, why the hell should we bankrupt ourselves for your amusement?

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            Both parties share blame but both parties are not actively looking for solutions. Democrats seem to have learned their lesson from passing bad legislation and have changed their tune to favour taxing the wealthy in the form of the Buffet Rule and regulating Wall St. (Dodd-Frank). Democrats in general opposed the extension of the Bush tax cuts and favour the Presidents jobs bill. Republicans favour keeping the Bush tax cuts, oppose Dodd-Frank and are still trying to deregulate and cut taxes on the wealthy even further at almost every turn.
            This is such an outright falsehood that it is embarrassing to read. The Democrats are looking to maintain the status quo every bit as much as the Republicans are.

            It is only your unflinching, unthinking partisanship that leads you to believe the Democrats have "learned their lesson".

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            It stands to reason that an attainable first goal of the protestors would be to re-elect Barack Obama, hand the Democrats back control of the House and have them keep the Senate. This wouldnt fix many of the structural problems facing America but would likely result in an initial wave of favorable legislation to help alleviate the immediate crisis. Afterwards longer term goals could be pursued such as the fight to get money out of politics altogether which already has overt 200,000 signatures.
            ROFLMAO.

            Danny, I've yet to see ANYTHING that you don't believe is a reason to re-elect Obama and give the Democrats absolute control.

            When the sun comes up in the morning, it is a sign in Danny-land that Obama must be re-elected.
            When the sun goes down in the evening, it is a sign in Danny-land that Obama must be re-elected.
            When it rains, it is a sign in Danny-land that Obama must be re-elected.
            When stops raining, it is a sign in Danny-land that Obama must be re-elected.

            Spare us. To use your idol's words, Danny, you don't have "any skin in the game". You are responsible for 0% of the massive debt we are incurring. Accordingly, you have 0 say in what we do.

            But hey, spamming all these entries from your blog gets you hits...

            ?


            • #7
              Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
              You had one, and no one liked what you did with it.
              There is some truth to this, I agree.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                Didnt the last democrat supermajority take a lot of money from Wall Street, and send them trillions of tax dollars?

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                  Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                  Didnt the last democrat supermajority take a lot of money from Wall Street, and send them trillions of tax dollars?
                  But... but... they've "learned their lesson"...

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                    Originally posted by Danny View Post
                    Both parties share blame but both parties are not actively looking for solutions. Democrats seem to have learned their lesson from passing bad legislation ...
                    Lol... you are f'n kidding right? Are you including the failing health care reform in the bad legislation they've learned to avoid?

                    It stands to reason that an attainable first goal of the protestors would be to re-elect Barack Obama, hand the Democrats back control of the House and have them keep the Senate.
                    How about we don't "hand" them anything, make them fight for it, make them earn every f'n vote. Hold them to their actions and boot them from office when their actions fall far too short of the rhetoric. Obama has failed, he doesn't deserve another second in office, next please.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                      It's really amusing that Danny is concerned about his team (well, his adopted team in a foreign country) "keeping" the Senate, when not long ago he was screaming that the Senate should be abolished.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                        Originally posted by Danny View Post
                        The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority | Politics North

                        Text is my own.

                        A lot has been made of the lack of clear demands given by Occupy Wall Street. Most of the demonstrators and their supporters have seen this as the mark of a true grassroots movement, one that has yet to be co-opted by any political party. And while no absolute demands are being made, this doesn’t mean there are no goals. By all accounts those goals appear to be addressing the brutal income inequality in the U.S. and fighting corporations that have become all too powerful, namely the big banks on Wall St.

                        These are very lofty goals, ones that will take years, if not decades to reach. It stands to reason that in order to get started, you need to have political representation in congress that is sympathetic to your cause. The problems facing America today are joint creations by both parties over the last several decades. Republican trickle down economics from Regan to George W have led to the top 1% benefiting immensely from an unfair tax structure. NAFTA and deregulation signed under Clinton may have contributed to good times in the 90s but ultimately came home to bite everyone in the form of the crash of 2008.

                        Both parties share blame but both parties are not actively looking for solutions. Democrats seem to have learned their lesson from passing bad legislation and have changed their tune to favour taxing the wealthy in the form of the “Buffet Rule” and regulating Wall St. (Dodd-Frank). Democrats in general opposed the extension of the Bush tax cuts and favour the President’s jobs bill. Republicans favour keeping the Bush tax cuts, oppose Dodd-Frank and are still trying to deregulate and cut taxes on the wealthy even further at almost every turn.

                        It stands to reason that an attainable first goal of the protestors would be to re-elect Barack Obama, hand the Democrats back control of the House and have them keep the Senate. This wouldn’t fix many of the structural problems facing America but would likely result in an initial wave of favorable legislation to help alleviate the immediate crisis. Afterwards longer term goals could be pursued such as the fight to get money out of politics altogether which already has overt 200,000 signatures.
                        Wasn't it Dodd that put a little line in the legislation that allowed for AIG execs to get large bonuses from the bailouts?

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                          I was lucky to have Katrina Vanden Heuvel retweet the link to my article last night. Katrina is the editor for The Nation Magazine and a regular contributor to MSNBC. I got quite a few responses on twitter from OWS supporters who didn't agree that the Democrats are a friend to this movement. I'll be writing a part two to the article and also responding to each post in this thread today if possible.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                            Originally posted by jviehe View Post
                            Didnt the last democrat supermajority take a lot of money from Wall Street, and send them trillions of tax dollars?
                            The American political system currently revolved around money. You either play the game by the current rules and do the best that you can or you don't play at all. I've never said only one party takes money from Wall St.

                            Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                            And since the Democrats are in the back pocket of Wall Street (right next to the Republicans), why do you think this would be any improvement?
                            Mitt Romney has raised 5 X as much as Obama from Wall St to date. The Democrats are much much less in the pocket of Wall St.

                            Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                            So, both parties created the problems, but you want to hand over complete, unchecked power to one party. No, thanks.
                            You saw what happened when the Dems had 60 Senate votes, the House and the Presidency. You got a first step toward real health care reform meaning a mandate. That's real progressive legislation that stopped some egregious practices by the insurance industry and will cover 30 million Americans who didn't have insurance prior. The watered down nature of the bill, particularly the lack of a public option, makes it a giveaway to insurance companies but that is a consequence of being a big tent party. The Dems had to deal with conservatives like Ben Nelson, Max Baucus and Blance Lincoln. People seem to characterize the ACA as shitty but they don't realize that they are essentially saying it's shitty because it's too conservative. Food for thought.


                            Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
                            This is such an outright falsehood that it is embarrassing to read. The Democrats are looking to maintain the status quo every bit as much as the Republicans are.
                            This is false. There are some Democrats who'd be just fine with the status quo but the overwhelming majority are fighting for things like the Jobs bill, Buffet Rule and More regulation. Meanwhile the GOP are fighting for even less regulation, less taxes on the rich and cutting jobs (spending).




                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                            Lol... you are f'n kidding right? Are you including the failing health care reform in the bad legislation they've learned to avoid?

                            How about we don't "hand" them anything, make them fight for it, make them earn every f'n vote. Hold them to their actions and boot them from office when their actions fall far too short of the rhetoric. Obama has failed, he doesn't deserve another second in office, next please.
                            The AVA covers 30 million people. Would you like insurance companies to go back to being able to cancel your coverage if they discover a pre-existing condition? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. If your problem rests with the fact that it's a giveaway to the insurance lobby well you can thank the conservative Dems for that. Its still a much need step in the right direction and an unbelievable achievement.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: The Initial Goal Of Occupy Wall Street Should Be A Democratic Supermajority

                              Originally posted by Danny View Post
                              The AVA covers 30 million people. Would you like insurance companies to go back to being able to cancel your coverage if they discover a pre-existing condition? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. If your problem rests with the fact that it's a giveaway to the insurance lobby well you can thank the conservative Dems for that. Its still a much need step in the right direction and an unbelievable achievement.
                              We all have a huge pre-existing condition to deal with: political parties that have failed us. The cure isn't handing them more control over our lives and finances.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X