!!!!!

[kpete]

“If 99 % of us voted, it wouldn’t matter how much the 1 % spent on elections”

President Obama says
https://amp.twimg.com/v/67572d24-ebbb-4e57-9dfe-b913404f1d52

[thereismore]

1. Obama approves of the political revolution. nt

[Rebkeh]

2. +1 nt

[Jarqui]

3. That really answers whether what Bernie wants is possible, doesn't it.

Like Bernie has said, "big turnout means we win"

That applies to the general election. The GOP will try to demonize Bernie but it won't stick with many because of his good, honest character.

[truedelphi]

4. That is a bit disingenuous.

I know the president does not have a lot of curiousity - he usually just wants someone to offer up a nice talking point that he can run with.

But the fact of the matter is that there is only a narrow field of candidates from which we can choose when we go to vote.

Here in Calif., at least locally, almost every person running as a "D" candidate has to first be approved of by Di Feinstein, who is so far to the right the "F" word applies.

And her being the "Chooser" has had some disastrous results.

During Primary Season, when Ahnold first ran for the gubernatorial slot, Steve Westly had very true appeal to the voters in California. People liked him and due to his business expertise, they thought that he would make a good governor. He wont he Primaries.

But Feinstein came out and said that was not enough. She basically did not at all care what us voters wanted. He could "wait his turn" as she needed to know he was her style of politician, before he got the top slot int the state. The public be damned.

Instead, Feinstein saw to it that Bustamante, a third tier politician without any name recognition, got chosen to run against Schwartzennegger. Ahnold was a Big Tie Hollywood movie star, with total household recognition. It was inevitable that Ahnold won. He remained in office for two terms. (What the payoff was for Sen Feinstein, I never found out. But you can be damned sure there was something she got, quid pro quo.)

Additionally, someone should ask Mr Obama how it is that his buddy Rahm Emanuel saw to it that anyone trying to run locally on a progressive platform was abandonned by the Democratic Party Leadership, circa 2002 to 2007? Or is it that Obama truly believes it to be a mere coincidence that Mr Emanuel destroyed the political careers of many many people and moved the Party to the Right?

####

[kpete]

5. Vote Vote Vote

If even 75% of US Population Voted In

EVERY ELECTION

We Could Have The WHOLE Enchilada





this is not an endorsement of any candidate, btw

peace, kp

[truedelphi]

6. No - as well as voting, we need to change the whole damn system!

When as a recent election for governor in Florida showed, both Big Party Candidates were crooks, and so why, why why in the world, especially in a nation with supposed "free elections," should we settle for that?

Why? So people whose fascistic policies make us sick, like Sen Feinstein, can garner bigger homes - as if her seventeen million dollar purchase of a home in the Presidio is not enough!

There are Big Wigs inside BOTH PARTIES who should be brought to court for revealing state secrets to spouses so the spouses can make some big bucks.

And there need to be legal mechanisms in all fifty states, so that when the Party Faithful shows displeasure with Some Crooked Big Wig's choice of a candidate, that we are not stuck with that candidate.

[randome]

7. "The President does not have a lot of curiosity?" LOL!

Have a heart, my friend!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[truedelphi]

8. I am having a heart. Way way back in mid 2009,

A friend and I had noticed so many times when Obama gave a speech that was a total reversal of what he had said just weeks or some two or three months before.

So he either lacks curiosity, or he flip flops on important economic issues, or else he out and out lies.

I was being very polite in saying that he lacks curiosity. But I am willing to go with the "L" word as well.

The "L" word would explain why he embraced Geithner as the Head of Treasury.

It also would explain the inherent dishonesty in his having Michelle do press conferences on
how great organics are, and even plant an organic farm on the WH lawn, all as a distraction. (Late Spring, 2009) For her organic farming stunt was offered up as a distraction the same week that the President was going ahead and appointing Monsanto puppets to high positions inside the FDA.

[MisterP]

9. exactly--we can only vote depending on who's offered to us

parties have had centuries of experience picking favorites and preventing primary challenges--they get no money, press, party support, party infrastructure

75% turnout can still give us Coakley instead of Capuano

[hfojvt]

17. it would require a lot more than 99% of us to JUST vote

Some of US would have to run for office, and then most of us would have to be able to get information about those who are running.

Because even if 99% of us voted, the legendary 1% could still flood the airwaves with disinformation, distraction, propaganda, and whatever.

It sounds bad to say it, but so much of the public has swallowed so much propaganda that many of them really need to be re-educated. Obama did say something, though, about voters getting informed.

[one_voice]

10. K&R

[TIME TO PANIC]

11. Oh yeah.

Well, what if all the candidates have been bought?

I do wish everyone would vote.

[Half-Century Man]

12. One pebble has little impact

All the pebbles, can crushes castles.

[retrowire]

13. is this a recent quote? nt

[handmade34]

15. few hours ago

awesome speech!!


"...we’ve got to insist that everybody arm themselves with information, and facts, and that they vote. If 99 percent of us voted, it wouldn’t matter how much the 1 percent spends on our elections..."


http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1317891/obama-springfield-transcript-illinois-general-assembly-speech

[retrowire]

16. nice! nt

[Cassiopeia]

14. Hell, if 75% voted

there wouldn't be enough money on the planet to buy our elections.