Skip to main content

For the sake of political expediency I have 'accepted' no single payer, no public option, a war on whistleblowers, Presidential execution by drone, the expansion of the security state, the militarization of our police forces, the persecution of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, fifteen months of unemployment, a house that's 263% underwater, no healthcare coverage, Eric Holder, Tim Geithner -- BUT THIS IS WHERE I DRAW THE LINE. Wall Street must be held accountable for their criminal behavior. No prosecutions, no votes.

If President Obama does not initiate prosecutions of Goldman Sachs and the other criminals on Wall Street who looted our country, I will not vote.  I have voted in every Presidential Election since 1972, but I won't be voting in this one if he doesn't publicly direct the Justice Department and the SEC to prosecute.

U.S. Won’t Prosecute Goldman Sachs, Employees Over CDO Deals

Our only leverage is our votes.  If we don't force President Obama to do the right thing before the election, he never will.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 2-)

    You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

    by ZAPatty on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:58:34 PM PDT

  •  Enjoy your Republican Congress (37+ / 0-)

    If you thought things were bad now, just wait till January 2013.

    "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

    by Cali Scribe on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:06:59 AM PDT

    •  two "I'm not gonna vote" diaries almost in a row. (21+ / 0-)

      This one, and this other one, a couple of diaries later:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I smell something fishy.  Anyone else?

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:49:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  perhaps our Red State lurkers (6+ / 0-)

        decided this sort of diary was so crazy-making on their own site that they'd better do something productive, like try to stir up the same angst amongst Obama supporters?   They don't have much else productive to try, it seems....

        Now, American in Chiang Mai :)

        by American in Kathmandu on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:55:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Americans have become accustomed to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Joieau, joe shikspack

        accepting the lesser of two evils.  

        I don't see any pattern except the diarist here,  as the other,  spoke an opinion based upon their beliefs and  conviction.  Many feel the same way.  The question is what do we do about it?   What is the best method to address this,  and it isn't by questioning credibility of those who speak from the heart and truth?  

        I don't have a better solution so I'll vote for Obama because we don't have a better candidate (such as Bernie Sanders).   Obama has the same flaws of all politicians, and I don't wish to cut my nose off to spite my face.

        Personally (as an Independent progressive) I am very skeptical of most politicians and political Parties,  because in the end most only want more power to help their cronies, and they do it by promoting partisanship,  group thinking,  and selling their soul to big money.    That get's them reelected and most will tell you anything to get elected.  

        I'd prefer to see Parties (especially the duopoly) and caucuses outlawed so all candidates would need their own  statement of objectives and run on their individual record.

        Voters need to be informed and more assertive with their elected officials and skeptical too.

        Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

        by dailykozzer on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:35:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not voting (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lost and Found, emidesu, TFinSF, Joieau

          is an evil in itself, so that has to factor into the "lesser of evils" analysis.

          You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

          by tomjones on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:13:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ZAPatty

            How is not voting an evil? If you genuinely can't support either candidate, why vote?

            •  Look at 2000 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lost and Found

              and the horror that Bush wrought on the US, and on the world. Even if you didn't support Gore (and a lot of progressives didn't in 2000), by not doing everything within your power to stop Bush's election, you would have helped do evil.

              You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

              by tomjones on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:42:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bush didn't get "elected" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joe shikspack, aliasalias

                because Democrats didn't vote.  And your idea that progressives didn't support Gore is just plain wrong.  Sandra Day O'Connor appointed Bush for political reasons.  Gore won in Florida.  

                You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

                by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:04:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If progressives in FL (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lost and Found, dailykozzer

                  had voted for Gore instead of Nader, the election would not have been close enough to steal.

                  And your memory of 2000 is a little faulty. Progressives were making the same arguments about Gore that they're making about Obama.

                  I remember, because I supported Nader in 2000, to my everlasting shame. (although I do live in GA so my vote didn't affect the outcome).

                  You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

                  by tomjones on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:55:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you blame Nader for 2000? (0+ / 0-)

                    You can continue the guilt trip, but those votes weren't what got Bush into office.  They weren't even counted in Florida.  Sandra Day O'Connor made a political decision -- she knew it was wrong and she did it anyway.  And now she laments the fact that the Bush v Gore decision is when the American public started to lose respect for the Supreme Court.

                    We need to take direct action before the election.  

                    You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

                    by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:19:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't understant exactly what you mean by, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lost and Found

                      "they weren't even counted in Florida". Whatever that means you can be sure they would have been counted if they had been cast for Gore and they would have put him over the top.

                      By withholding votes from a viable Democratic candidate the Naderites effectively handed the election to Bush. However you dice it, if Nader hadn't run and siphoned votes off we would not have had 8 years of Bush. We would not have had two ruinious wars and we would not have had a reactionary Supreme Court bent on taking us back to the 18th Century.

                      The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

                      by Pirogue on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:38:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  tens of thousands of voters were purged from the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ZAPatty

                        voting rolls, exit polls found Bush getting a lot of Dem votes, there were several other Parties on the list, recounts were stopped by Kathleen Harris, and then there was the  SCOTUS....

                        The blame Nader thing has been debunked so many times that when someone tries it they should be ignored.

                        without the ants the rainforest dies

                        by aliasalias on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:36:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I still support Nader (0+ / 0-)

                    He is one of the few patriots like Bernie Sanders (defined as being supportive of the greater good instead of only wealthy shills).  

                    I didn't vote for Nader in 2000.   BTW you didn't throw the election,  Al Gore did.    He chose an ass instead of an asset as VP.    Furthermore when he should have made his position known in Florida that all Americans demand a re-vote.  The people determine elections, and instead he acquiesced,  and allowed the 9 justices to decide for us.    I blame the Bush Presidency on Al Gore, not Ralph Nader.  

                    Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

                    by dailykozzer on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:55:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  And so you think the answer is to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lost and Found

                  put more conservatives on the Supreme Court? This is what will happen if Romney is elected.

                  It is doubtful Ginzburg will be able to serve four more years and, if not, her replacement would be appointed by Romney.

                  This would be a disaster seeing the damage that has already been visited on democracy by the Paleo Four (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito).  

                  The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

                  by Pirogue on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:32:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Don't even have to go back (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lost and Found, firstalto

                to 2000 -- look at 2010 when poor turnout in many states led to the Republicans taking over control of the House where they've roadblocked just about everything, or Wisconsin where they've been stuck with Walker and his enablers in the legislature.

                "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

                by Cali Scribe on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:43:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If Obama want to turn out the Dem base (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dailykozzer

                  ...prosecuting Wall Street would help him.  Apparently he's decided he doesn't need our help -- he can let them off the hook and we'll still vote for him anyway.  All he needs to win is that Wall Street money.  Fuck that.

                  You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

                  by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:49:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  2000? Heck, what about 2010? (0+ / 0-)

              We ended up with two years of hopeless roadblocks in Congress because of Democrat apathy in 2010. We did not vote, and we lost the House.

              True, we had housecleaning to do in our own party, since the "Blue Dogs" were not helping our cause much. But too many people sat on the sidelines and pouted because their pet issue wasn't addressed in the first two years - allowing Republicans to take the House and several governorships. The 2010 election is biting us in the butt today because of all these ridiculous voter-ID bills, redistricting, and general do-nothingness in Congress.

              Change doesn't happen overnight, especially with the economic mess Obama's administration inherited. It took Bush two terms to mess things up this badly. Why would we think it would take less than two terms to turn things around??

              It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to do wrong. – Abraham Lincoln

              by firstalto on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:15:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  what we do is: (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, avsp, emidesu, blueyedace2, firstalto

          1)  Bust our butts to re-elect Obama and "more better Democrats."

          2)  After a polite interval after the election, we descend upon Washington DC like a swarm of bees, with noisy protests and peaceful civil disobedience aimed at making it impossible for Congress to function until they deal with our demands, those being the entire progressive agenda.

          3)  We also inflict as much pain, misery, and damage as possible against the plutocratic right-wing and the theocratic right-wing, wherever we find them.  The goal being to keep them off balance and on the defensive.  Permissible tactics include mass sit-ins, littering, parking violations, and data-spills, and nonviolent "pranks & mischief."

          4)  At the same time, we take over the Democratic party from the bottom up: local county committees, that kind of stuff, and runs for local offices starting with dog catcher and moving up to Board of Education and entire city governments.  This is how the wacko right took over the Republican party, and it worked.  Never throw away a viable tactic, even if you've learned it from your enemies.

          As a generalization, there are enough things to do here, that everyone can do at least one of them.  There's no excuse for ass-sitting or thumb-bouncing.  The very existence of our species hangs in the balance (runaway climate change).  The question our dead grandchildren will ask us all, in the hypothetical hereafter, is, "what did you do to prevent human extinction?"  And we'd all better have a damn good answer to that.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:19:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just musing, but (5+ / 0-)

            I believe the time is now to put the pressure on Obama. We can see he is echoing some of our ideals at the moment to get our votes. But while he talks about Mitt outsourcing, there are threatening secret trade negotiations (TPP) happening. While he talks about the social contract, and caring for the needy, he still permits in our government an overall dismissal of our civil rights, from drug enforcement to secret hearings to rampant spying; and other areas, such as the safety net, where we stand to lose if we don't take a firm stand now.

            I'm thinking of how the big boys (bankers, pharma) do it--work out their bargains ahead of time; by the time we hear about them, they're already a done deal.

            I wonder if we can exact those kinds of deals, although we have only our votes to work with. And of course, it's always important to choose our battles wisely.

            The point is to pressure Obama now, while we still have the power. Otherwise, after the election it will be business as usual.

            •  that's a valid strategy debate: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marina

              Whether to a) give unconditional support now and ferocious protest after the election to get our demands met, or b) use our votes as bargaining chips now for commitments to meet our demands.  

              My inclination is to believe that (b) depends on having a large enough voting bloc that can move as a mass.  That existed in the days when most of America's workforce was unionized.  The head of AFL-CIO and/or Teamsters, could basically say "we will endorse if you give us X, otherwise we will not endorse," and that worked for Representatives, Senators, and Presidents.

              But now that the unions have been decimated (hint: never agree to pull your pants down for your boss, or you'll lose your bite and then your bark), that tactic doesn't work:

              Who, exactly, is in the position to call up the campaign and say "here's what we expect, demand, and require, in exchange for our support".....?

              Nobody, that's who.

              So in lieu of that, what's left?  Seems to me the only thing left is to be 100% gung-ho before the election, thereby bringing in as many votes as possible, and then immediately after the election: "OK, we did our part to get you elected, now here's what we need, and the or-else is that crowd of protesters outside who are fully prepared to camp out in the halls of Congress if necessary."

              "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:54:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That didn't work last time (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marina

                And you might check the Statute of Limitations for fraud in NY.  The only way to be heard is BEFORE the elections.

                You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

                by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That is a major drawback (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek, aliasalias

                but we need to get around it. If it takes organizing into coalitions to make demands, we have to do it. If we have to set aside some of our differences to do so, let's be prepared to do that for the time being.

                •  sure, I'd go for that. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marina

                  Up to a point.  Because after all if we're going to make demands, we may as well peg the meter at the left side of the dial, and recognize in a pragmatic sense that we are not going to get everything we want.  

                  Start out by making strong demands, and you'll get much more than if you start out by making weak demands.

                  "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:25:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, that'll happen. (0+ / 0-)

            The case for Obama is that he doesn't suck as much as Romney. But that's a pretty valid argument, given that we have to have an election.

        •  I can live with someone saying (0+ / 0-)

          they won't vote for Obama -- but this person is saying they're not going to vote period. That's why my comment was about a Republican Congress. And depending on what state the diarist is in, not voting can make a hell of a lot of difference -- ask the folks in Wisconsin or Ohio.

          "If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now" -- Rev. William Barber, NAACP

          by Cali Scribe on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:41:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Check my UID, grasshopper (0+ / 0-)

        And read the diary.

        You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

        by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:14:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  say, the diarist identified a pattern... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZAPatty, aliasalias
        ... fifteen months of unemployment, a house that's 263% underwater, no healthcare coverage...
        perhaps that has something to do with the sentiments being expressed by a lot of people.

        i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

        by joe shikspack on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:39:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  People need to blow off steam (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, ZAPatty

        or else they might put guns to their heads.

        Seriously. Some of us still get enraged and need to get it out or explode.

        I'll vote. I also have in every election since 1972, even after saying I wasn't going to more than once. But don't expect me to smile and don't expect me to shut up. I feel the same way the diarist does. I am furious. I am in despair. I am almost in tears.

        Both parties have the same owners.  One is worse than the other and therefore we must vote against it, but both are owned by the same people and we are screwed either way. The big banks are bigger than they were before. Whatever they do, they get away with it. No one is going to stop them. Their corruption will seep into every corner of our country. Why would anyone feel they have to be honest when they see this shit?

        If you're not enraged by this, I don't know why. Everyone should be.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:01:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How'd You Feel About The Last Two Years..... (28+ / 0-)

    with over 30+ House bills to repeal "Obamacare", 30+ House bills to take away a woman's right to an abortion if she chooses, record breaking filibusters in the Senate & a Congress w/ an approval rating between 7-10%.

    Interested in having Paul Ryan as your VP?   Congress has just left town for 5 weeks.  Every single Representative in the House will receive $174,000.00+ this fiscal year for doing absolutely nothing after accomplishing absolutely nothing for 2 years.

    Don't vote then.  Your choice, of course.    

  •  And here I thought this would be a diary (30+ / 0-)

    about drawing the line because Republicans are disenfranchising millions of minority, student, young, voters, etc.

    I guess you haven't noticed that Wall Street is swinging its vote fully behind Republicans.... they'll love this diary of yours, I'm sure.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:20:27 AM PDT

  •  I understand your frustration, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    firstalto, cal2010, jlynne, The Hamlet

    WOID: a journal of visual language http://theorangepress.com/woid

    by WOIDgang on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:24:09 AM PDT

    •  excellent essay (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Kelly, ZAPatty, WOIDgang, aliasalias

      thanks.

      “I was wrong this time, but at least I have hope still, and that’s the thing that matters.”
      I think this is true.  I also think that many of us, myself included, no longer have hope.

      Thankfully, Obama doesn't need us to win -- because it is also true that he will be less bad than his opponent.

      What Obama needs to win, however, is not votes, but the stamp of approval from Wall Street and the Fortune 500.  He's got that.  Al Gore didn't.  

      I'm a purity troll.  I will not vote for Obama.  I have that luxury because the Hank Paulsons of the world don't mind if he serves another term.

      Yes, Obama will win, and the right wing societal restructuring program will at least be slowed, if not derailed as many hoped.  We should all enjoy Obama's eight years.  The respite has been dearly bought.

      The man claims that the office of President confers the power to assassinate at will.  

      Think about that.  Really think about it.  Even Cheney didn't go there.

      Hope?  No, sorry, I have none.  Sympathy, yes.  Hope, no.

      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

      by jlynne on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:56:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You might consider writing him a letter. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirtandiron

    Not saying it would do any good, but I'm certain he can't read your mind, and it's very likely he doesn't read every diary here.  ;-)

    •  I think stronger action is warranted (0+ / 0-)

      And I don't think I'm the only one.

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:31:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, so you might consider staging a protest. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Frisbeetarian, The Hamlet

        Either way is fine.  Even open and flagrant civil disobedience is easily justified in times such as these.

        As one of those green leftist types whose views have been routinely ignored and denigrated by both the President himself and a larger progressive community more concerned with winning an election than actually being progressive, I do feel your pain.

        •  don't waste your time; diarist is playing... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emidesu, rockhound, Lost and Found

          .... a psychosocial game known as "Why don't you? Yes but."

          Your move is to say "why don't you do X?"

          Diarist's move is to say "yes, but...." and provide some excuse for not going it.

          Repeat endlessly until one person or the other throws up their hands and walks away.

          Better to not play in the first place.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:22:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody disagrees (9+ / 0-)

        March, protest, you name it. The more the better.

        But vote. Intelligently, responsibly, maturely. Use the tools at your disposal to produce improvement, rather than to fail at producing perfection.

      •  Ummm... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        labwitchy, elmo, Lost and Found, Cedwyn

        But you are advocating INACTION. How very "brave" of you.

        FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

        by mole333 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:24:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I'm advocating direct action (0+ / 0-)

          to pressure Obama to do the right thing.  BEFORE the election, when we have some hope of being heard.

          You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

          by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias, Lost and Found

            I don't see that in your diary. All I see is you saying you won't vote. Perhaps if you really WERE advocating something positive rather than what seems like smug laziness people would react better.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

            by mole333 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:38:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You must have missed this part (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias
              If President Obama does not initiate prosecutions of Goldman Sachs and the other criminals on Wall Street who looted our country, I will not vote.  I have voted in every Presidential Election since 1972, but I won't be voting in this one if he doesn't publicly direct the Justice Department and the SEC to prosecute.

              You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

              by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:54:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  how about people signing this petition to get (0+ / 0-)

            Obama to pull his coal advocacy ad?
            http://act.credoaction.com/...

            And right now we need leadership from President Obama to overturn a decision by his campaign to run radio ads in Ohio which promote coal and incredibly actually criticize Mitt Romney for saying (when he was a different person, in 2003) that the pollution from coal plants kills people.1

             The reality is that Romney's campaign is being buoyed by a massive injection of cash from fossil fuel polluters like the Koch brothers. And he's pulling his pro-coal talking points straight from the Tea Party. So an ad suggesting that President Obama is more coal-loving than Romney isn't just cynical, it's misleading.

            Tell the Obama campaign: Drop your cynical pro-coal ad.
            The ad reflects clear political pressure President Obama is feeling in swing states like Ohio.

             But is the Obama campaign actually misguided enough to think that anyone whose number one issue is promoting dirty coal would also be misguided enough to vote for Obama instead of Romney?

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:44:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And witholding your vote... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        ...gets that done how?

      •  stronger action like ummm..... footstompin and (0+ / 0-)

        breathe holding?

         btw whether YOU vote or not you ARE supporting a candidate... by NOT voting you just don't get get an actual direct voice in who gets elected is all.

        "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

        by KnotIookin on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 08:46:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The President does not prosecute. (15+ / 0-)

    The Attorney General must be independent to avoid even the appearance of political influence. Besides, the executive can only follow the law.  If the financial sector has been given a pass, leaving deleterious behavior legal, that's the responsibility of Congress and our state legislative bodies.
    Yes, Congress has pointed the finger at the financial engineers, but that's a fraud. Democratic control of Congress is not a guarantee of better laws, but it's a start -- now that we know where the problem lies.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:53:33 AM PDT

  •  Have you considered the possibility (10+ / 0-)

    that there is no set of conceivable circumstances under which Goldman Sachs gets prosecuted?

    Have you considered that by letting the Republicans win, you will be rewarding the behavior, and encouraging more of it in the future?

    Choosing the lesser of two evils may be tiring, but so is any journey measured in single steps.

    Try looking over your shoulder and see how far we've come. If the repeal of DADT, gay marriage as a party plank, the rescue of GM and by extension the auto worker's unions, the beginnings of a real health care system don't inspire you, then maybe you're on the wrong journey.

    Is there evil in the world? Of course, always, from the first day until the last. Is that in any way an excuse to stop fighting? Is that an excuse to stop trying, even for a second? Of course not.

  •  Your choice, of course... (7+ / 0-)

    But I happen to believe that we have been much better off under Obama than we would have been under a McCain presidency - and will continue to be better off with Obama at the helm than Romney.

    He's president, not dictator - and withholding votes does absolutely nothing to advance a progressive cause, especially when Romney and his ilk are our current alternative.

    You want to really change things? Work to elect progressive Democrats to Congress so we don't see two to four more years of obstruction and logjams. Maybe then the president can accomplish more of what you'd like to see. Blue Dog so-called Democrats undermined his agenda in his first two years, and Democrat voter apathy caused the loss of the House in 2010.

    It often requires more courage to dare to do right than to fear to do wrong. – Abraham Lincoln

    by firstalto on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:03:50 AM PDT

  •  I wasn't surprised about the news. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cal2010, ZAPatty, aliasalias

    President Obama administration is full of people from Goldman Sachs, he obviously has a friendly relationship with GS.

    And everything you say in your Diary is true.

    Nevertheless I will hold my nose and vote for Obama in November, not because I believe he isn't Tweedledee, but only because he's more likely to toss us some crumbs from the table than Tweedledum.

    One day I believe the American working class will wake up and form an independent labor party that represents our true interests, until then we are caught in the 1%'s shell game.

    I'll vote for him, but without enthusiasm.  I won't drink the koolaid.

    •  Even Obama can be pressured (0+ / 0-)

      Think he wants to see protests against him outside the OFA offices?

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:14:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And who's going to lead those protests? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        I see no indication in this diary that you're stepping up to take a leadership role and do the hard work of organizing people to protest.

        Are you going to put your action where your mouth is, or are you going to keep pretending that if you promise to stay home, the President will arrest all of Wall Street and then knock on your door and beg you to vote for him?

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:04:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt Gets Worse (4+ / 0-)

    Evisceration of any remaining financial regulation, firesale of
    public assets, war with Iran, debtor prisons, eminent domain
    deployed for the next bank rescue, food riots...

    This is the path where Romney will lead.

    I just flushed my Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone. Whaddya know, trickle down theory actually works somewhere.

    by cal2010 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:23:10 AM PDT

    •  War with Iran (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZAPatty, aliasalias

      I think we'll see the war with Iran happen no matter who is president.  The 1% want it, and what they want happens regardless of which of the two parties are in power since they own both of them.

      The only difference between a Democrat regime and a Republican will be, as it always has been, on issues that don't matter very much to the 1% but do matter to the rest of us.

      We should remember that this happens every 4 years, fool us once shame on them... etc.

      I'll vote for the "lesser evil" since there is (at present) no viable working class alternative.  Sigh.

  •  Obama will get my vote... (4+ / 0-)

    but when OFA calls asking me for money, I'll tell them they can kiss my @ss and go talk to Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry, headlines like this really piss me off.

  •  You are worse than useless... (6+ / 0-)

    Let me tell YOU something. I have COPD, an infected hemorrhoid, a rectal fissure, an inflamed prostate, an aching back, an inflamed prostate, an anger problem, some kind of inflammatory bowel condition, a heart problem, low sodium, and I STILL cook my own breakfast, take my own dog for a walk, cook for my family, and pray to God at night.

       So it is with these badges of honor that I tell you to go fuck yourself, and be damned with the purity patrol. Obama 2012. And a ten buck donation for all your concern troll troubles.  

    Breathe. If you can, you ain't dead yet.

    by Socratic Method on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:42:10 AM PDT

  •  I never understood hunger strike politics (7+ / 0-)

    personally.

    I'm so angry at x, y, and z injustices that I'm going to starve myself slowly to death in protest.

    To punish those who are abusing power.

    I hurt myself.

    That will show the bad guys.

    And, how exactly does dying a slow miserable angonizing death so that the creeps in power have one less person who wants justice and good will to account for hurt evil people?  

    I feel the same way about boycotting the vote.

    Refusing  to vote in protest is a kind of self-delusional social suicide. It's trying to cast irresponsibility as the ultimate act of responsible citizenship.

    Or quitting as a form of commitment.  

    The election is less than 3 months away. Boycotting the ballot might turn an unexpected Democratic wash or modest gains into a Republican rout that rivals 2010 on the Congressional level.

    On Obama.

    I get it. I do.

    You will never catch me throwing confetti in the air and posting starry-eyed photo diaries as if he walks on water.

    Obama has done a lot of good. He's also done a lot of dropping the ball.

    Obama is a profoundly flawed President. Period. There is a lot of things his administration has done that could have been better, and there are some things his administration has and has not done that are frustrating and enraging.

    But he's a good man. A decent man.

    He'll sign things that no Republican ever would if he is handed it, or forced to do it by hard political reality.

    You have options with Obama you don't have with a GOP White House.

    Obama can drive you nuts.

    But compared to a President Romney, President Obama on his worst no-good holy shit why did he do that kind of day is Mount Rushmore material by comparison to a hypothetical Romney White House.

    But you can't blackmail a sitting President this way.

    The sad truth is, its going to take a fight that will last years to decades to fundamentally change a lot of things in DC and in our stupid messed-up civility austerity and bipartisanship fetishized country.

    I hope you vote.

    I won't call you names. HR you. Smear you.

    I just hope that you reconsider and vote.

    A whole lot depends on it.
     

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:53:26 AM PDT

    •  I find it a little hard to believe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TFinSF

      though, that the diarist claims she has not sat out a presidential election since '72.

      Therefore, unless she voted for Bob Dole in '96, she voted for Clinton's re-election, this after NAFTA, welfare reform, DADT, DOMA, and triangulation.

      I'm pretty sure NAFTA alone did more damage to the middle class than not prosecuting Goldman Sachs over this ever could.

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:26:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  President Romney Will Prosecute (4+ / 0-)

    Only to thank non-voters like yourself. You are a brilliant political strategist. Maybe it is a tradition with you. Did you vote for Nader in Florida in 2000?

  •  Rec'd only because the news is important to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Hamlet, John Kelly

    get out, despite diarist's poor handling of title and body of diary.

    And a question for ZAPatty:  Why not vote for a Green Party candidate?  Or for the Socialist candidate?  What is this "I'm not going to vote" business?  Why not vote for what you DO believe in?  There are many other candidates out there besides the two run by the largest parties.

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:33:54 AM PDT

  •  He was never going to get the votes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misslegalbeagle, Cedwyn

    of the pathologically stupid: teabaggers, Bradley Manning cultists, people who think that "Tim Geithner!!!!" is a coherent argument, so I couldn't care less about your tantrum.  Go cry yourself to sleep.

    ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

    by TFinSF on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:02:09 AM PDT

  •  The Supreme Court is everything... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misslegalbeagle, Cedwyn, blueyedace2

    We are in a period in our history when the right is gaining ideological ground and they are close to being able to exercise effective control of the means of persuasion in the country. Citizens United has given them a huge leg up in the political wars and with respect to education they are working feverishly to institute vouchers so we can all pay for ultra right-wing political and religious indoctrination.

    The Supreme Court is the vital battleground in this struggle and we simply cannot allow them to further solidify the conservative majority in that body they now enjoy.

    Truth is the fight for all those things you mention will be lost if we lose the Supreme Court. You need to imagine a world where a whole new wave of indoctrinated children have come of age. Where Corporation control the funding of political campaigns by the simple weight of their massive monetary resources. Where censorship of media under a conservative value tests is rampant, where the police are even futher empowered to supress dissent, and on and on.

    I hope you get the idea and I hope that you begin to understand that people who are threatening to withhold their votes need to grow up politically. You just don't get what you  want overnight and to insist that leaders on your side deliver everything or nothing is a sure recipe for the complete defeat of your agenda.

    Consider the Naderites in 2000. I am sure they feel all ideologically pure and righteous, but look at what they brought about. If they had voted for Gore we would not have Alito and Roberts on the Court and we would not have had the ruinious wars we are now mired down in. We would not have Citizens United and they probably would not have allowed public funding for religious indoctrination. As for the green agenda, it has been pushed back a generation or two and may be effectively dead if the trend continues.

    It is a battle for hearts and minds and the Supreme Court is where the rules are made. Unless you want to hitch your star to some radical concept of dictatorship of the righteously anointed or whatever we are stuck with electoral politics. In electoral politics you don't get to be all warm and fuzzy and ideologically pure and get to parade around on a white horse because that  is a sure way to kill your own aspirations for the future.

    Please reconsider.

    The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

    by Pirogue on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:29:38 AM PDT

    •  You make a good point but so does the diarist. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Kelly, aliasalias, priceman

      I don't remember candidate Obama saying in 2008 or later in 2009 that he would allow Wall St thieves to skate away unpunished, while they squire away and offshore more of our nation's wealth at the expense of the 99%.  But that's what happened.

      The financiers and the war profiteers also encourage the 99% to be sacrificial lambs in yet another war, this time in Iran.   If Obama can't prosecute thieves,  how will he ever stand up against the forces that constantly demand more for themselves, while the sheep are forced to march off to war and sacrifice, while their future and  Social Security and Medicare is trashed.   The undue influence and greed of the 1% is  the problem.  

      What is the solution?   Is it to continue to fight for table scraps while the foxes guard the hen house?   I agree that the fight needs  to be made in such a way not to cut our nose to spite our face,  and harm the 99% and nation anymore than we have been.    A change isn't going to happen by accepting the status quo.    Voices need to be heard loud and clear by progressives.

      BTW I blame the election on Al Gore himself by picking an ass instead of an asset for VP,  and for not aggressively demanding a statewide re-vote in Florida instead of whimpering and putting his tail between his legs and giving the election to Bush.   The elections ALWAYS need decided by the people not the SCOTUS.    Gore could have forced that issue and the re-vote would have happened.

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:11:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think your fox metaphor is inaccurate. (0+ / 0-)

        What we are faced with is not a choice between two foxes but rather a choice between a person who is quintessentially a member of the fox species and a person who is decidedly not a fox at all but merely one who has not pursued the foxes as diligently as some would like.

        But I truly don't believe he is sympathetic to foxes at all. What I think is that, early on, he fully understood that given the situation he inherited that his options were limited. He fully understood from the get go that he could pursue an agenda of health care reform or an agenda of retribution against the perpetrators of the Wall Street debacle. He also understood that both options would be deeply divisive for the country and he understood that, while he would have a reasonable chance to prevail in pursuing either, to pursue both would almost certainly guarantee the defeat of both as well as turning over the presidency to the Republicans in 2012. So he chose the health care option.

        You may not agree with his choice but let's be honest, he stuck his neck way out on that one and while most liberals such as myself think he did not fully press his case, the fact is, he was able to initiate a health care program that has a good chance of evolving into universal health care in your lifetime if you are under 40 or 50. This  has been an aspiration of Democrats since the days of Truman whose adminsitration, incidentally, I remember as a child. He is the first to get a foot in the door.

        It is easy for firebrands to second guess and decry what a president does when in office but I suspect most of them would find themselves looking a bit more soberly at the situation if they were given the reins of power and had to walk into the oval office, a few steps from the crisis room, with an understanding of the depth of their responsibilities and an understanding that, given the volatility of world politics, one false step could spell the end of any future for humanity.

        As I said, I am old enough to remember when Truman was president and that also makes me old enough to remember the pervasive "White Only" and "White-Colored" signs you would see at almost all public facilities in my home state of Lousiana. That battle is certtainly not over but we have come a long way given that we are now arguing about the re-election of an African American President. But the gains were made through a battle for hearts and minds, not by people voting against those who would not and could not move as fast as their ideals would dictate.

        Progress arrives as a result of an evolutionary process and those who pick up their ball and go home when they don't get everything only retard that progress.

        Back to the fox metaphor, your option is pretty much guaranteed to  hand over the key to the hen house and it is hard to see how that is a smart thing to do. But even more important than the hen house is the makeup of the Supreme Court because they set the rules of how the game is played. The other side has a huge advantage at present (I would still argue handed to them by Nader) and it would be ruinous to cede the nominating power to a president in the clutches of the fundamentalist-ultranationalist Tea Party.

        Again, back to the age thing, in all of the 14 elections cycles I remember we were told that "this one is the most important ones in history". It is an expected rhetorical flourish  easy to get used to and easy to dismiss. But this time around, given how strong the forces of reaction are at the moment, and given that the Supreme Court is so vital to the process, we are in danger of taking a retrograde path that will possibly require generations to correct. But an even deeper worry is that the world is on the brink of so many catastrophic possibilities that we may not have generations before it is too late.

        I urge you to reconsider. I don't know how old you are but I can promise you one thing, even if you are very young this is not a fight that will be won in your lifetime, much less one election cycle. The struggle is endless because there will always be people conniving to use the levers of power to exploit others. What you can hope for is to leave a world that is better than the one you were born into. As a general rule that does happen and most generations get to say the world is a better place than the one they found.

        The world is a den of thieves and night is falling. -Ingmar Bergman

        by Pirogue on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 08:25:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Blame Sandra Day O'Connor (0+ / 0-)

        She did the wrong thing for partisan reasons, and she'll go to her grave with the blood of Iraq and Afghanistan on her hands.  Not to mention the destruction of our economy.

        You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

        by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:28:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The bastards are all in... (0+ / 0-)

    ...by kowtowing to the batshit crazies Republicans now have all their eggs in one basket case. Four more years of Obama may, MAY, drive some of them toward the center. Seeing Dems win after all the bluster fuss may, MAY, make moderate R's speak up just a little louder. And after the successes of the Occupation movement coupled with an Obama win, Wall Street may, MAY start to rein in the main offenders and consider accepting re-regulation. To me, all of the above and more may, MAY, be worth me giving up whining about what I didn't get from Obama's first term, getting off of my ass and voting for the only candidate that has a chance to beat a third Bush presidential term, only worse. I hope the diarist reconsiders and joins the fight.

    •  May? (0+ / 0-)

      Excuse my French, but fuck that.  I'm done hoping Obama will do the right thing.   I'm not whining, I am pissed off that NOTHING will be done to punish the Wall Street criminals.  They can bust medical marijuana dispensaries, but they can't make a case against Goldman Sachs?

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So... (4+ / 0-)

    You don't like what Obama is doing so you won't vote? So you will punish people running for Congress, Senate, state level positions, judicial races (you know, the people who actually decide court cases), etc. etc etc because Obama's administration isn't doing what you want?

    Do you realize how lame that sounds?

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:23:14 AM PDT

    •  About as lame (0+ / 0-)

      as voting for someone who just announced he will do NOTHING to punish Goldman Sachs and the other crooks.

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:35:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually no... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found

        Your refusing to vote enables the right wing at ALL levels of government right down to judge. Which means the laws will be interpreted by right wingers for years to come if your little "protest" catches on.

        What good does THAT do? And yet you DEFEND ceding all down ticket races because you don't like Obama?

        Short of actually voting for a Repub that really is about as lame as it gets.

        Seriously. Get off your ass and help out some down ticket progressives.

        Here's some you can start with. Or here if you prefer. I don't care whether you vote for Obama or not. But please don't feel so smug about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

        FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

        by mole333 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:35:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Smug? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think so.  And you have no idea how politically active I already am.  Quit the ad hominem attacks if you can't address the issue -- Obama's failure to hold Wall Street accountable.

          You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

          by ZAPatty on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 11:59:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No... (0+ / 0-)

            You say you are not voting. I criticize your exact words. I suggest activism instead. You quote your own statement saying you won't vote as somehow being positive action. I point out it is not positive action but merely the same kind of lazy inaction I was criticizing.

            I am directly criticizing your statements and suggesting you take alternate approaches that still could be in line with your beliefs. You do NOTHING except defend inaction. You are right I don't know your level of activism, but I am addressing your statements in your diary and your comments to me. That is what we do on a blog. Your statements here have bee advocating INACTION and defending that inaction. And  you have taken a smug attitude (that is a subjective opinion I admit) towards that inaction, implying that somehow your refusal to vote is superior to my vote, and even going so far as to imply that your refusal to vote at all is superior to voting for downticket folks even if you don't for Obama.

            I said that was lame in my first comment and I still think it is lame. The only difference now is that you are further defending the lameness. Is that ad hominem? I could see you interpreting it that way, but I intend to be calling your apparent glorification of lazy inaction lame.

            Remember, your ONLY claim to actual activism in your comments to me so far is a repetition of your statement saying you won't vote. That is NOT activism. And you have yet to say you are voting on downticket candidates. So I have to assume you saying you won't vote is punishing downticket candidates for your anger at Obama. That...is...LAME. You may not like my saying that, but it in NO WAY serves your stated goals. It in fact counteracts your stated goals.

            Now are you going to actually advocate something POSITIVE or are you going to continue to stick with your ineffective, counter productive, LAME advocacy of not voting at all because you are angry at ONE MAN, Obama?

            Sorry if you don't like a direct and logical challenge to your diary, but my criticism is completely valid, logical, and if you can't address it then you are being counter productive to your own stated values.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

            by mole333 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:36:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  STFU (0+ / 0-)

              Please.

              You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

              by ZAPatty on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 09:35:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah... (0+ / 0-)

                So you post a diary but can't take the criticism. You can't even face the implications of your advocating not voting. you can't even admit that refusing to vote punishes good downticket candidates because you personally are pissed at Obama.

                Seriously, you need to rethink your approach to this.

                And I have never STFU no matter WHO tells me to do so. That includes corrupt Party bosses, City Councilmen and Congressmen.

                FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

                by mole333 on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 06:30:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  As I've said all along throughout this debacle... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn

    ...the real banking scandal wasn't that G-S, etc. defrauded the public and screwed over the economy to enrich themselves.

    No, the real banking scandal was that G-S, etc. defrauding the public and screwed over the economy to enrich themselves was perfectly legal, thanks to the lawmakers (from both parties, sadly) that they bought during the late 1990s and 2000s.

    Much as I want to see the bankers who wrecked our economy rot in prison, I still think that a political prosecution that didn't actually stand a chance of succeeding would have been even worse—politically for the Democrats, financially for the country spending money on windmill-chase prosecutions, and policy-wise for the cause of more bank regulation—than not prosecuting.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:25:04 AM PDT

  •  This must be the Romney camp's effort (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wwjjd

    to counter all the "whammies" he's been getting in the campaign: "Go to all the leftie sites and proliferate dissent!"

    I must say, this is a lackluster attempt at best.

    •  The diarist (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dailykozzer, ZAPatty

      has been a member since 2004 and has been writing here since 2006.  I doubt Romney's been planning to sabotage DK since 2004...

      •  People change. They pick up new (0+ / 0-)

        frames of right and wrong. I am not the same person I was in 2004.

        •  Nasty little ad hominem attacker UID 310212 (0+ / 0-)

          You don't know me.  And why not address the issue of Obama's utter failure to prosecute any of the crimes committed by Wall Street?

          You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

          by ZAPatty on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 12:05:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never insulted your argument by (0+ / 0-)

            insulting you personally, that is what an "ad hominem" is. Know what you're throwing around. I said you were throwing a tantrum, which accurately describes your reaction to these events. Now, OTOH, if I had said "you're being a whiny little Princess", then that would be a proper ad hominem. See the difference? In example one, I belittle your argument. In example two, I belittle your argument by belittling you. You're welcome.

            I know the list of Obama's failures. The Wall Street issue. Some people see the drone strikes as an issue, I see it as more murky. As far as gun control, I think he's being very prudent.

            But despite the fact that Obama hasn't come through on all fronts for me, I'm not going to have a fit of pique and throw my vote. Like it or not, Romney is far, far worse, and anything we do to sabotage Obama just to "show him" brings us closer to a Romney administration. How will your sense of self-righteous indignation feel then? Like a great victory? When GOP and Tea Party policy seems "validated"? When they start implementing the Ryan budget in bits & pieces through a rubber-stamp Congress?

            Do whatever makes you happy, but don't try to paint yourself up as a moral crusader on the issues. You're not. Your just angry you didn't get the pony you thought you deserved, so to show it, you'll send all the other ponies people got --LGBT rights, equal pay for women, an end to the Iraq war, etc-- to the glue factory. Hint: that doesn't help.

    •  Check my UID (0+ / 0-)

      I was here before you even knew what Daily Kos was.

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:37:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Diary is a ridiculous exercise in self indulgence (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, kalmoth, TFinSF

    I'm sorry we couldn't wave a magic wand and make everything happen exactly the way you wanted it.

    We've been trying for health care reform for 40 years - we got it! Something Carter, Clinton, Kennedy/O'Neil in the Congress and countless others tried and failed.

    Presidential execution by drone, the expansion of the security state, the militarization of our police forces:  ended war in Iraq, drawing down and ending war in Afghanistan, kept us out of war with Iran/Yemen/Pakistan that McCain or Romney most certainly will get us into. Gave us Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.  

    I don't like the drone strikes, but they are better than ground wars trying to root out terrorists.

    Julian Assange - what does Obama have to do with this?

    Bradley Manning - violated the law

    Your unemployment / house under water:  I am truly sorry for this - but the fact is we've had 29 straight months of private sector job growth, the housing market is turning, and if you help Romney, it will all unravel.

    Prosecuting Goldman - love to.  Tell me what law they violated. We passed Dodd - Frank, under Romney it will be eliminated.

    No, our vote isn't our only leverage.  Our money, our protests, our canvassing, our working for more progressive democrats is our leverage. Try that instead of negative self-indulgence.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:38:08 AM PDT

  •  I'm not voting for Obama, either (6+ / 0-)

    because my lawnmower is broken and there is a pothole in my neighborhood that hasn't been fixed.

    You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

    by tomjones on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 07:03:01 AM PDT

  •  As a lawyer, one of the things that drives me (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found, TFinSF, jdsnebraska, mayim

    nuts is people who think something looks wrong to them so it must be illegal.

    And because they think something must be illegal, they think that it's a simple thing to prosecute. Hey, just do it.
    They think a trial is like what they see on TV shows.  All done in an hour's drama.

    I just wish that one of these diaries would actually cite the specific section of the actual law that they think would form the basis of the prosecution, and then describe what admissible evidence they think exists to form the basis for the prosecution.

    That would be nice.

    •  I'm a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

      And fraud is illegal.  Trust me.

      You can't change the world without conflict. -- Markos

      by ZAPatty on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:39:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have you ever tried a fraud case? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, kalmoth, TFinSF

        I haven't, I'm not a litigator. But my husband is a board certified consumer lawyer with 30 plus years of experience and he's tried more than a few such cases.

        Trust me. It's not as easy as it looks from the vantage of the internet. I notice you did not even attempt to cite a statute or admissible evidence either. Why?

    •  That's scary that you're a lawyer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      Good thing there's Bill Black who knows fraud is illegal and prosecuted it. Not easy, but worth doing and having principles besides shilling for whatever a politician does.

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:32:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What drives me nuts is a justice system that looks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZAPatty

      for ways to get the wealthy elite (like Wall St) off the hook,  and conversely looks for ways to aggressively prosecute the nobodies in society.    

      We have an injustice system of priorities that benefits the wealthy and encourages them to screw us even more.  I don't hate the rich,  I hate the way the rich control our policies and political puppets and "justice".  

      The problem of corruption by CEOs and Wall Street could literally be solved overnight, just by criminally prosecuting them and putting their lives on the line.   We need to punish them for their grand larceny of the public welfare,  just as we do with those being caught selling marijuana three times.  

      These people unlike some are extremely tuned into risk reward,   and if their lives or the rest of their life was put at stake because of fraud and grand thievery,  they would not do it.    It would stop overnight.   We need examples set instead of always giving them a pass.     A French guillotine that would serve for special crimes of greed against humanity would be an even greater  deterrent.    But we need to see an example set at the top.  Others will then fall into line.

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:11:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pastry for a very transparent attempt... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found

    to neg out the vote.

    I will not vote.
  •  Emoprog fail (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, TFinSF

    Not even worth a pastry

    Note to self, stop before I emulate the habits described in this diary.

    by Rustbelt Dem on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:10:54 AM PDT

    •  lol. "Emoprog." What is this? High School? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZAPatty

      What high school stall did you find that one in?

      ‎A) "Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." - George Carlin B) "The administration should be worried about the level of despair here." ~Markos Moulitsas at NN12

      by priceman on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:27:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site