Oh Dear I was going to say something disparaging. I think the above is telling enough. Don't let yourselves be swayed by this guy. In fact, don't let yourselves be swayed by any of them. (Democrats / Republicans) They are politicians, they're all lying, cheating, low life, motherfuckers. And they don't give a fuck about you. There are the exceptions ... The Pirate Party. IMHO,We should muster our global collective strength, and get right in behind them with a massive campaign to support them 100%
Bernie Sanders exposed! A shocking look at his views on rape and violence against women https://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/be...his_views_on_rape_and_violence_against_women/ Bernie Sanders, I don't trust him. I don't like, or trust the Democrats / Republicans. In the end they're all cut from the same cloth. We need a new political paradigm, we need a new direction. We need to smash the above motherfuckers to pieces. Get rid of them, get rid of the lobbyists, and the corporate influences that have infected the halls of power for generations. It can be done. All we have to do is mobilize the masses. There is no other way. There is no other alternative.
Forgive me being so slow, but if I just read that article correctly its mocking those who would have us believe he's a rape apologist. It lists his substantive voting record over many years in support of measures to protect all against sexual assault and domestic violence. What am I missing?
Yes, I too, have read the article, T. And yes, he has supported many good causes. But! He has a dismal record when it comes to other matters. I.E .. voting for the war in Iraq, and backing the prosecution of Edward Snowden. He's a Democrat in Republican clothing, T. He will still have to toe the Hilliary Clinton party line, should she become president. And that will be a fucking circus. Fuck them.. Fuck them all.
Well clearly yes fuck them all, but to varying degrees. I can only speak from the perspective of someone who is forced to vote under threat of fine (Fuck you AU) So to me a vote should always be made very carefully even more so when all the candidates are on the nose. The lesser of the weevils approach, if you like
Oh and I cant see Hilary getting it, so I want to get to know the other players like Bernie a bit more thoroughly. Even though I live on the other side of the planet, this next US election is a doozy with incredible implications for all.
AOTF wants us to overthrow everything and rebuild society from scratch. This is like voting for Jesus because he is a very nice man. Who cares if he does not actually exist. One of the problems with this approach: in times of chaos the biggest asshole takes over. Also I notice AOTF failing to say, "oops my bad" when he used a quote out of context to make Sanders seem like a mysogynist and Tara called him out. He just changed the subject to hating everyone running for office. Low class, AOTF.
Well, I think that it's better to be constructive, to have ideas, to throw those ideas out there, to be positive in one's approach. To be progressive, always moving forward.
Very true, cyclically the worst assholes of history rise to the fore, but inevitably they topple and a rapid restructure happens. For a brief shining while things are glorious before absolute power corrupts the idealists yet again. Begins again, again, again.... I wouldn't mind being in that sweet spot just for a bit.
I BTW I am not suggesting an overthrow by any stretch I just have observed that corruption historically builds to the highest levels then action tends to be taken by the masses to change it and things move on, and back again.
Oh I ain't mad, AOTF. You are cool with me. But for your own sake, I recommend you say, "oops my bad" when you make a mistake. A lot of good stuff happens when you let people know you recognize your error. There is no shame in making a mistake if you are up front about it. Especially with US politics, which can't be easy to comprehend from abroad. The Bernie Sanders rape meme fascinates me. Because that is some carefully crafted disinformation. Someone with a lot of money paid for that. It takes the FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) form made famous by denialist (denial of evidence) movements (tobacco, global warming, antivax). Those denialist campaigns have been funded by the far right so Imma guess it is them. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. You have to get your head around that first. The US does not have much of a socialist party because we hate them. So the memes that make Sanders seem like Trump are bizarre.
I have been following up on a situation where a brother has been d0xed, and seeing this brother fall by the wayside because of other peoples jealousies, inflated egos, nastiness, spitefulness, and their downright fucktard nature, has both, pissed me off, and fired me up. And if I have stepped across non cross-able boundaries, and have made a mistake, I'm truly sorry about that folks. It was honestly not intentional. This particular Anon has been absolutely incredible in his dedication to the cause. He would go out of his way to help total strangers who came to him with their problems. He has unwavering honesty and integrity. I'm extremely pissed that we have lost a good man because of other peoples low life actions. They used his trust to plan his downfall. I feel like ripping their fucking throats out! This is why I do not have a Twitter account. And another good reason why I split from IRC eons ago. Getting back to Bernie Sanders .. If he was to change his stance on Edward Snowden, If he was to have a really good hard realistic look at Julian Assange's wrongful imprisonment, to have the balls to stand up for these men, to put in motion the mechanisms for their eventual release, so they can once again be free men. Then and only then will I reconsider my stance and opinion of the man.
Is there some candidate who says Snowden was right to leak top secret NSA info? BTW, Julian Assange is not in prison. He's avoiding an extradition request by staying in the Equadoran Embassy. You do not have to be "truly sorry" like you hurt somebody. You were just wrong about something. You thought an article about Sanders backed your meme making Sanders seem like a rape apologist when it was making fun of people who say that. Oops! The important thing is not the feeling sorry part. It's letting people know you recognize the error. So "oops" is enough. Without the "oops" I can't be sure if you still think Sanders is a rape apologist or not. Really, I am most interested in the original source of the meme. And since I don't imagine you hanging out with right wing types I wonder why these right wing memes are sticking to you. I am just curious, that is all. Sorry about the anon who was doxed. Maybe he can lay low then sock up.
Relevant segue ... Lessig @lessig Jan 27 Why I Ran For President - The New Yorker In the spring of 2015, before I decided to run for President, two things were clear to me. First, the need to focus America on the failure of its democracy was as urgent as ever. Second, no plausible candidate for President was going to do that. That need for reform was summarized by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, in their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks” (2012): “All of the boastful talk of American exceptionalism cannot obscure the growing sense that the country is squandering its economic future and putting itself at risk because of an inability to govern effectively.” Democracy has never been utopia. But we forget that at important moments in our history, it has worked, and, through it, we could address the nation’s problems again. Today, whether the issue is climate change or tax policy, health-care reform or the debt, Wall Street regulation or crony capitalism, immigration reform or gun control, the reality is the same: our government has lost the capacity to address these issues—either at all, or, certainly, sensibly. This truth gets obscured by the pathological level of partisanship within our political culture. Neither insider Republicans nor insider Democrats are willing to acknowledge a systemic problem with America’s democracy. For them, the problem is always and only local: the other party. But we’re not going to ban the Republican Party from American politics. Neither will we abolish the Democrats. And neither party is going to achieve long-term dominance of the American political system, at least not anytime soon. So any solution to the ills of American democracy that looks to one party alone is not a solution. Instead, what our democracy needs is a democracy movement: a bipartisan recognition of how our Republic has failed, and a political movement powerful enough to bring about a remedy. And today, the only possible agent of political reform is the President. Congress isn’t going to fix itself. Neither are the state legislatures likely to rise and exercise their power to reform the Constitution (even though that was clearly the Framers’ plan). The only modern political actor capable of putting comprehensive reform before “the People” is the one political actor actually elected by “the People” (or sort of, at least indirectly, through an Electoral College): the President. At the beginning of last year, as the election season began, it seemed clear that no candidate for President was going to make such reform central to his or her campaign. None was going to take on Congress, as the most important early supporters of any Presidential campaign are members of Congress. Neither was any candidate going to make money in politics a primary issue in his or her campaign. That was almost certain on the Republican side. In the spring, no one expected Donald Trump would be a candidate, and certainly no one thought that if he were, he—a billionaire—would make the outsized influence of billionaires a central issue in his campaign. There were other Republicans that one could be more hopeful about: Lindsey Graham had called for an amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, and others were consistently attacking crony capitalism. Still, before Trump made big money toxic, it seemed unlikely that any Republican would make big money central. The same was true for the Democrats. Elizabeth Warren could have made the issue central, but by May it was clear that Warren was not a candidate. That left Hillary Clinton as the obvious nominee, as well as her unlikely challenger, or so it seemed in the spring—Bernie Sanders. I have no doubt that Clinton wants this rigged system reformed. But given the issues raised about the Clinton Foundation, it was obvious that even if this were the most important issue to Clinton, her campaign would never permit her to make it central. Every speech would be an invitation to an attack from the other side. That left Bernie Sanders. In early May, I worked with others to advise Sanders about the issue of money in politics. Given his history, it was no surprise that he was receptive to proposals for reform. Sanders had been a vocal critic of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. He had proposed an amendment to the Constitution to reverse its effect, and to empower Congress to protect the integrity of its elections. He’d never been a strong advocate for public funding of elections, which is the only meaningful reform that Congress could enact immediately, though he had supported it and was open to the idea in this campaign. So after a number of calls, I prepared a memo for Sanders, summarizing the issues and making recommendations for him to endorse. But the critical recommendation that I made in that memo (subsequently leaked to Politico, apparently by someone with the Sanders campaign) had nothing to do with any specific proposals for reform. Instead, it had everything to do with the priority of reform within his campaign. Of course, America needed to reform the corrupted system for funding campaigns. But America would only ever achieve that reform, I argued, if a Presidential candidate made it central to his or her election. The only way a President could even hope to have a mandate powerful enough to take on the most powerful interests in Washington was if his or her whole election was tied to achieving that reform. This point is even stronger with a progressive like Sanders. None of the issues that Sanders would otherwise address—from single-payer health care, to “taking on Wall Street”—could be addressed credibly until we first fixed the corrupted system that Congress has become. There is not a hope in the world for single-payer health care, so long as insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have the power they have within our political system. Likewise with Wall Street: the financial sector is within the largest sector of contributors to congressional campaigns. There is no hope for sensible reform of the financial sector until Congress is independent of Wall Street. The whole believability of Sanders’s campaign, I argued, would turn on him offering a reason why his reforms would be possible. Making fundamental reform primary was just such a reason. Sanders was receptive to the recommendations about the substantive proposals about which bills to support, and which amendment made sense. He was not receptive to making these proposals central to his campaign. I could never quite tell why. It could well have been a political judgment—a view about what would rally a base, and what would not. Or it could have been a judgment about what was really possible in Washington. Whatever the reason, when Sanders finally came around to announcing that he would be a candidate, it was clear he was not announcing that he would be a reform candidate. No doubt, he tagged the problem of money in politics. No doubt, he made the bashing of billionaires a central part of his message. No doubt, he spoke repeatedly, if vaguely, about “revolution.” But he was not announcing a candidacy that made reforming our corrupted system the first priority of his Administration. It was not the equality of citizens that Sanders was fighting for. It was the equality of wealth. As we entered the summer, it was thus clear that fundamental reform was not going to be an issue in the Democratic primary, which meant fundamental reform was not going to be an issue in the 2016 Presidential election. That recognition made more urgent this question: What if we could recruit a candidate who would draw the public back to a point that, in some sense, they already recognize—that the system is rigged, and that it must be unrigged if anything real is going to happen? Given the stakes, I thought it worth a try. And after I spent much of the summer trying to recruit a credible, outsider candidate, I recognized something that would be critical to my own decision to run: that even if a candidate got only as far as the debates, his or her candidacy could make a difference. Even if all that the candidate did was to drive attention to this latent demand for reform, it could well shift the focus of the campaign in a way that made reform more likely. For much of July, I spoke to everyone I could about the idea. It was when the Democratic National Committee announced the rules for the debates, at the beginning of August, that I became certain I would try. This is the first part of Lawrence Lessig’s essay about his Presidential bid. Read the second part, “Why I Dropped Out,” about what brought Lessig’s 2016 candidacy to an end. Source - http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-i-ran-for-president?mbid=rss
State Department declares 22 Clinton emails contained top-secret information | Los Angeles Times The private email server Hillary Clinton used while secretary of State reemerged as a liability for her presidential run, as the State Department acknowledged Friday that 22 messages stored on the server contain top-secret information. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-email-20160129-story.html
A wolf in sheeps clothing: http://imgur.com/iga4Rnk All his votes on this list can be verified. And I agree with AOTF, they are all candidates part of a corrupt system. Believing that we need this system is like saying animals wont survive without the farmer.
No an unbalanced list of cherry picked votes can and is used to forward an agenda. I want a list of all his votes then. All human beings are a mix of good and bad acts. One cannot judge by weighing the 'bad acts' alone.
The political left and right are both represented here. But thanks to OpWallSt this forum will be viewed as leaning left. So when you aim your message of apathy here, you must imagine that you are helping the Republicans. Tara is right. Cherry picking is misleading. Politics is the art of compromise.
Oh hey I found the "animals won't survive without the farmer" meme. Seems to be popular among anarcho-capitalists. I am not fond of anarcho-capitalism because of their blind spot. Sure, governments are big powerful things that hurt people. But they are not the only big powerful things that hurt people. Corporations that want to poison natural resources for profit can be nasty killers as well. The blindness to non-governmental power seems to come with a blindness toward the inevitable result of weakening government: the rise of fascism. I really hate fascism a lot and would put up with high taxes to avoid it. Go feel the fascist vibe in this article where I got that sheep meme: http://christophercantwell.com/2014/03/21/libertarian-brutalists-must-recruit/ In the US, the anarcho-capitalist movement is funded and controlled by the far right John Bircher types (Koch brothers and their fellow homo novi). Nasty people who have been spamming us with anti-science misinformation for decades. Their growing power base must be resisted by all sensible people who do not rich people owning fucking everything.
Sounds like an excuse from a victim of domestic violence: "Oh he only hits me because I deserve it, he has a good heart most of the times." Get your shit together... even if it's cherry picking, "two wrongs do not make one right". Bernie Sanders town hall gives US party line when confronted re: #gaza BERNIE SANDERS AND HIS RADICAL SOCIALIST-COMMUNIST PAST Sorry to shit on ur white Obama dream. This is just another "yes we can" movement.
So who do you promote, Mr. Black PR? I notice that the people in Vermont have kept Sanders in the Senate for 30 years. Seems enough time for him to ruin that state, yet it still has pretty good skiing and ice cream.
Like it was said here above, they are all puppets. To think that one represents the ppl and is not financed by corporations is an illusion. You cannot expect progress from a corrupted system. You are probably right about Adam kokesh. Here is another fun quote: "The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Politicians can't do anything without a supportive public. The public need to show the politician that they *want* campaign finance reform, or someone who will stand up to the health insurance lobby, or solid, free public education through high school and the first couple years of college, etc. So we need leadership that will be responsive and we need to figure out what we want that is actually possible. I do not have any money and most of my friends don't either. So of course we will need some wealthy people to chip in for any campaign. I don't have a problem with that, provided it is not so much from one source to make it impractical to tell that source to fuck off if necessary.
Nobody said they were not all bought and paid for Obama was the most thoroughly owned example of that. But sorry to tell ya buddy there is no third choice. Pick carefully the one that shows even the slightest hint of possibly standing for something/anything on principal and it then becomes better than nothing at all (see Obama) Its the finer details that will make for a complete man of straw, or an almost complete man of straw. Choosing the lesser of evils is the best your fucked up system can offer for now.
That's the fucking problem, to think that nothing can be done and we have to just vote for the lesser evil. It's the difference between watching something happen and making something happen. People should look more into what Iceland did after 2009.
Presumably you are referring to legal peaceful protest rather than any other revolutionary concept, because wwp, strictly legal peaceful, ya know. Right so in order for that same process to occur in the great USA, Precisely how many people do you think it would take to rally outside the whitehouse? or other place of your choosing to effect the same change. Don't rush and feel free to quote it as a percentage of the population should you prefer.
That's an excellent point. White Tara said Also very true. The truth is, "them" / "they" (NSA/ CIA / FBI) ..etc, they don't give an actual flying fuck. In their eyes, we're the fucking enemy. Innocent or not. That being said .. By just being a member here automatically puts people in the firing line. I.E, "WE" and "PROTEST" The majority of us here have probably been "flagged" and added to one of their satanic like creations. I.E ... A Stasi / Nazi like, watch-list. Like it or not. We're already, and have been for a very long time, at war with the motherfuckers.
Proven voting fraud! Gov't programmer testifies voting machines are rigging elections https:// youtu.be/t4aKOhbbK9E IMHO ... Get Kevin Mitnick to oversee the task of tabulating the machines for the next US elections. The dude would make damn sure that everything was above board. He'd be the perfect candidate for the job, and a guy you wouldn't want to fuck with.
Every Youtube I have ever seen that has "Proven" in its title has been a waste of my time and no proof. It's like that one weird trick that will make you lose an inch of belly fat in a week. Evidence of rigged voting machines -->FBI-->investigation-->round up bad guys and have a trial-->facts in the public record. That is how the system is supposed to work. YouTubes do not come into it.
LOL This coming from the TLDR guy. The testimony and evidence was given "under oath" in front of The house senate committee on election fraud. Chaired by Congresswoman Maxine Waters. And is a matter of factual public record! Why the justice department has not done anything about it? Well, we all know how selective those slippery motherfuckers can be when it comes to their "Too big to fail, too big to jail" corrupt agendas. Srsly TI. Do some fucking homework for once in your life. I'm really starting to worry about you.
