A New Group on Oligarchy and another on a Progressive Candidate with Integrity--Please Join, Vote Up, and Comment (POLLS)

Oiled Pelican, thanks for the comment on my picture (Avatar) for "Oligarchy". It took awhile to find one that would express sufficient conspicious wealth as well as the potential disdain for the rest of us.

Thanks Physicist-retired. Like you, I am sensitive to the effect that Nader had on the Gore/Bush election. I was and remain annoyed that Nader keep going in Florida after apparently he promised to stop campaigning in any state where he could tip the election. To those who supported Nader, yes, he had the right to keep on with his candidacy and, yes, Gore didn't win because:

1) He failed to carry his own state (amazing, huh?);

2) He failed to call for a recount of ALL of Florida (which he would have won);

3) The Supremes coranated Bush II the president (though it might have been harder for them to do that if Gore had petitioned for [2] rather than a partial recount).

I to am a pragmatist. Check out here for my moment of conversion which I withheld even after he escalated the Afghan war.

Here's a key practical fact: Rocky Anderson IS running. We can't discount that now.

Furthermore, if ever there were a time for a Third Party candidate to win, it's when he can pick up the energy of the 99% who, if they pay attention, know:

1. Obama is only a compromiser-in-chief who aids the1%;

2. Obama's a persuasive campaigner but a lousy executive for our interests (assuming we're not banksters or part of the 1%);

3. The Republicans are self-destructing and Ron Paul may also launch a Third Party campaign;

4. This is the moment to pick up on the anger, the disillusionment, and the disenfranchisement of the fading Middle Class, the depressed newly unemployed (or underemployed), the awareness of our corrupt system which motivates the 99% OWS movement.

What do you think in light of all of this?

Doing research, of course, is essential. We're the thinking Americans--not FOX news robots.

Physicist-retired, thanks for the detailed reply. I'm working on a report I need to submit on Monday that is very important for an organization, so I'll only respond quickly. Not usually my style if you check my past comments to people.

Re: Afghanistan, Woodward's book says it all. He caved.

Re: Guantanamo, I agree in the main... but I don't know if he really pushed it. Not in the way a leader could have (below).

Re: Health Care--perhaps the best example of what a leader could have done (below).

Re: tax cuts and the unemployment insurance excuse--again, another excellent example of what Obama could have done and didn't (below).

Re: supporting the banksters. Yes, TARP was Bush's invention (like the Afghan war) which was fully adopted by Obama. I'm not excusing Bush just adding Obama's name to these crimes against the 99%.

So, how did Obama fail in all of these ways? HE DIDNT FIGHT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING AMERICANS. He was MIA.

How did he fail to fight? Well, what's his ONE skill? Yup, oratory. He could have gone on TV during prime time and explained to the people what the public option was and why it would be beneficial, or why unemployment insurance actually helped the economy (a Bush committee had concluded that), or why continuing tax cuts to the wealthy would slowly bankrupt the economy. HE DIDN'T LEAD.

You might say, well, he would have lost. I'd rather have a president who tried his best to help the 99% rather than just capitulating. Wouldn't you?

And we don't even know he would've lost on those issues if he had clarified what was being deliberately confused by rightwing media. The problem is: he didn't even TRY. Why? My sense is that we should always look to the bottomline to explain that. Who benefited the most from Obama's presidency financially? Look no further to the puppet masters.

Oh yes, don't forget that Geithner (of Goldman Sachs fame) was Obama's first appointment to his cabinet. Even though Geithner's own tax shenanigans violated Obama's own criteria for appointments. Have you seen "Inside Job"--the academy award documentary of 2011? Obama's right in it, as the closing parts of the movie demonstrate.

I've been around for a long time too. But I still have some hope in democracy. I have a lot of concerns about some of this, but they aren't because the people can't win if they are given a chance to do it. Rather, this oligarchy is turning more and more nasty.

I'm gone--I might get back in 36 hours for more if I can get my job done. I'd welcome any response, I just can't comment anymore today.

roadhead, you are welcome!

Why would you say such a silly thing:

so he is an isolationist authoritarian who is opposed to freedom and against innovation and effort.

Have you even read what I posted? What rubbish!

Marshall James, thanks for answering my question.

What you are talking about is government regulation, which we have today and which we have had for a very long time.

he believes in restricting the freedom for people to make choice on what they sell...by tariffs and taxation.

You don't mention what kind of taxation you are talking about. Income tax? Sales tax? Tariffs have to do with international trading. All three of these are part of the standard role of government. Without taxes, no government, no public roads, no public libraries, no police, no fire, no so many things that I doubt if you really mean it.

Tariffs go both ways: on imports and on exports. Tariffs are governed today by a balance of international agreements, both implicit and explicit. No president could take away all tariffs going both ways without opening American markets to "dumping" by foreign sources.

As for this statement:

in his world if someone invented some great technology.....they wouldnt be allowed the have the "monopoly" so the gestapo...oops I meant the government would come in and "relieve" him of ownership of what he created

That's also what we have today, both domestically and internationally. You are using bizarre language to describe the kind of restrictions that almost all governments employ. They are part of government, not part of tyranny.

No presidental candidate will eradicate these things. No government could exist without these things. Are you a governmental nihilist?

MJL, I can appreciate not voting until a person gets informed. But why have the Obama hat pulled on so tightly that it covers your eyes?

Do you think Obama's policies are favoring the 99% or the 1%? Which group has done better under his presidency? That tells you something about his policies. Did you read here before? Do you think Obama's been the president of change and hope he promised to be?

Please check him out--you're a thinking viner. Then vote, join, whatever. He is running and if you think he's good, at least join my group about him on the vine.

MJL, I can understand not trusting any candidate today with very few exceptions: Elizabeth Warren (am I naive? I hope not); Ron Paul (though he's responded to a lot of criticisms that sometimes make me wonder); Rocky Anderson (can't promise I'm not being sucked in, but at least he's stood up against recent wars and has been a consistent environmentalist). That's just trust. Ron Paul scares me on issues of the social safety net for the 99%.

I can and would like a Progressive Liberal Woman--hopefully more than one--in the group. If you find what you don't like, please post an article and put in on the site with your research notes. I know I would appreciate that.

HD, Mike and Hugh,

I am sensitive to the effect that Nader had on the Gore/Bush election. I was and remain annoyed that Nader keep going in Florida after apparently he promised to stop campaigning in any state where he could tip the election. To those who supported Nader, yes, he had the right to keep on with his candidacy and, yes, Gore didn't win because Gore himself screwed up:

1) He failed to carry his own state (amazing, huh?);

2) He failed to call for a recount of ALL of Florida (which he would have won);

3) The Supremes coranated Bush II the president (though it might have been harder for them to do that if Gore had petitioned for [2] rather than a partial recount).

I am a pragmatist. Check out here for my moment of conversion which I withheld even after he escalated the Afghan war.

Rocky Anderson IS running. He will wind up running in every state. So why not support him? Why support Teedlededee?

Furthermore, if ever there were a time for a Third Party candidate to win, it's now. The electorate is unhappy with Congress, with Obama, has had two grassmovements, and one of them has caught on and captured the attention of the 99%ers. Rocky Anderson can pick up the energy of the 99% who, if they pay attention, know:

1. Obama is only a compromiser-in-chief who aids the1%;

2. Obama's a persuasive campaigner but a lousy executive for our interests (assuming we're not banksters or part of the 1%);

3. The Republicans are self-destructing and Ron Paul may also launch a Third Party campaign;

4. This is the moment to pick up on the anger, the disillusionment, and the disenfranchisement of the fading Middle Class, the depressed newly unemployed (or underemployed), the awareness of our corrupt system which motivates the 99% OWS movement.

What do you think in light of all of this?

barry-barry-libcon, Ha, that's an interesting doublespeak black-ops-style paranoid perspective.

Like Dylan sings, though, there is "something happening here" and in general I agree with you. Divide. Propaganda. Inspire false hope. Put a great orator in office so he/she can explain away the duplicity and treason. Run the media, all the mainstream media.

You are right in general.

I don't think this is true of Rocky Anderson. He's been part of the 99% way before OWS. He's been opposed to the immoral, illegal, and criminal wars the 1% have mandated of our politicians in the name of profits and the hope of cheaper oil.

In general we agree. Do you have any good reason to deny what I just said?

Ha ha ha ha. That's a good one. At least you have a sense of humor.

USA Freedom, have you looked at the home page http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm lately?

So I ask you: which candidate would Christ prefer? The Party of the Drone War and Bombing. Death from above? The Libertarians who are willing to let the schools and school buses of the poor crumble into uselessness? Willing to let the Oil Companies destroy the wells of people near fracking wells? What happened to the Christian idea that "what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me"?

Look at the education policy of Rocky Look at the environmental policy. Look at the war policy.

I don't get the gist of your remark, USA Freedom. It seems to me that the only statements that it will be "easy" come from most of the politicians who are campaigning (all the Republicans except Ron Paul, plus Obama) and they, of course, are lying and know it (if they don't know it they can't possibly be qualified).

That leaves Ron Paul and Rocky Anderson. They are not lying and have different perspectives on not "being taken care of.

If you are criticizing Rocky Anderson for being in favor of the environment, workers, social security, medicare (and something like it available for all citizens), I think you are looking at feudalism. That's what the 1% actually want, of course.

And that's why they need to control politics, including the presidency which is worth trillions. Obama is a friend of the banksters. Check out "Inside Job."

barry-barry-libcon, I cannot disagree with anything above, or where I do it is being a bit nit-picky.

Yes, I see dangers for Rocky as a candidate. I'm sure he does too. Either you believe in the possibility of change or you give up.

The same is true for Elizabeth Warren.

There are dangers. I celebrate those who can get support for their campaigns and are still willing to have the courage to stand up for real Democracy and for the 99%.

barry-barry-libcon, Warren is a gem. I don't think the lie propaganda machine will stop her from winning. Massachusetts actually is a progressive state. Even when Romney was governor, he passed a statewide universal and progressive healthcare plan.

Warren is so good that I'd posted a number of seeds and articles hoping she could run against Obama. I've sine talked with political savvy friends of mine in NH and it would be too much of an effort. I figured, wrongly, that she'd be well known there because of the contiguity of the states.

That's why I'm delighted to have found Rocky Anderson (again, through talking to a friend).

So please look at my reply to you at 21.5. Join these the Rocky group (if you join the Rocky Anderson group you don't need to be committed to him--if I discover he's even half as bad as Obama was, I'll begin opposing him.) Thanks for joining the Oligarchy group.