Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, February 17, 2019

Occupy Wall Street held back from rejecting participation in the current American political system Wednesday night when the General Assembly — the group’s main decision-making body — tabled an official resolution to refuse support for both the Democratic and Republican parties.

It’s a sign that the consensus-driven mass of protesters in downtown Manhattan are more concerned with keeping their strategic options open than completely severing ties with a political order they see as fundamentally compromised.

“The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they’ve been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates,” read the statement, which seemed driven by concern on the part of activists that official support from the national Democratic party — whose leaders have already tentatively embraced the cause — could destroy the movement’s independence.

“The mainstream corporate media is trying to dismiss this movement,” said a member of the “We Will Not Be Co-Opted” Working Group as the proposal was offered. “They are constructing a narrative that we are the puppets of the Democratic Party. The Tea Party was co-opted by the Republican Party; we will not be co-opted by the Democratic Party.”

Activists are plainly sick of a political culture where leaders of both parties take massive donations from financial companies. But the failure to pass the resolution seemed to indicate a recognition on the part of many that one party is more beholden than the other; indeed, reports that Barack Obama’s fundraising from Wall Street is down sharply compared to his 2007-08 campaign provide ammunition for those Democrats who argue that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation passed last year was a real win for consumers over big business.

“To be clear, we are in a very good position,” said an activist opposed to the resolution in its current form. “Never in my life has a political party been trying to co-opt my agenda! We’re doing very well. We’re reframing the discussion, like certain groups on the other side have been doing for 40 years. If we want 99% to be with us, that includes a lot of people who, for their own reasons, have determined it’s important to engage the political parties that exist. This includes a lot of effective communities. I don’t think now is the time to put up barriers to potential allies.”

In any case, the move continues a pragmatic streak by the protesters that began with their organizational acumen and continued with a brilliant response to the threat of eviction. Far from being naive idealists, the most involved participants want their cause to remain logistically viable — and politically potent.

“My concern is we only have one government, one system, so if we reject parties, we cannot participate,” said another dissenter to the statement.

The refusal to totally opt-out of electoral politics tell us a lot about the character of the movement, said Todd Gitlin, a professor at Columbia University and leader of Students for a Democratic Society in the early 1960s.

“The impression I’ve had is that the bulk of the people who march on the big occasions, they’re developing a politics improvisationally that’s not yet willing to paint itself into a corner. They’re keeping options option. The passion for inclusiveness is actually authentic. That’s an important moment.”

The full resolution, tabled for the time being, follows:

“The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they’ve been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, and the occupation does not support their candidates. In collusion with both parties, the top 1% has profited at the expense of everyone else. We have moved beyond false hopes and submission to eloquent speeches and populist manipulation. We rely on cooperation and solidarity to imagine and create the changes needed for a sustainable world. From diverse multicultural, racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual backgrounds, and from different walks of life, we have begun to unite on common ground to oust the global financial powers that have bought our government and who hold us hostage to their greed.”


Follow National Correspondent Matthew Taylor on Twitter for continuing coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests@matthewt_ny


  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 0

17 responses to “Occupy Wall Street Tables Resolution Denouncing Two-Party System”

  1. doctordoctor says:

    Instead of quivering in fear that one or the other party might “compromise” the movement, the movement ought to see itself as a player willing to be affiliated with the group more closely representing its views. In this case, that would be the Democratic party. Republicans have been shown (proved, repeatedly) to be willing to say whatever’s necessary to be elected. Democrats — well, they’re democrats. Like herding kittens, most of them are really trying to do the nation’s business. Some are better at it than others. Some are more “bought and paid for” than others. But there’s no variance in the Repubs, baby. They may run on jobs, but they legislate anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-middle class, anti-poor and (especially) anti-anyone-not-like-them. Occupy Wall Street is a breakthrough happening the vast majority of Democrats will support. The movement, rightfully skeptical of anyone in office right now, should be careful nnot to throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting affiliation with both parties. They should use their true grass-roots power to fundamentally change the way campaigns are financed — which most, if not all Democrats would welcome — and which would take away the sole reason most of the reality TV party is interested in the game(show) at all.

    The movement has power. Affiliating with the Dems can provide a way to make that power count toward the realization of the movement’s goals. It’s important not to miss this opportunity. We’ve been waiting for it for a long, long time.

  2. Christina says:

    It is not for OWS to endorse any party or candidate, but for the candidates to endorse the OWS and for elected officials to legislate OWS goals into law.

  3. omgamike says:

    Why not have OWS organize as an Independent party and find and field their own candidates, from among their own? They have the ability to solicit the necessary funds. It would require them to organize a lot more than they are now, but this way, they could remain politically “pure”. And they sure would attract support.

  4. rumpunch says:

    Forming a third party is not in the best interest of OWS or liberal leaning and independent voters. It’s more practical and logical for the Democratic party to listen to OWS and incorporate their ideas into it’s procedures. We’ve tried third party with Nader and the Green Party (very worthy) and what it got us was George W. Bush & Dick Chaney. Now is a time for us all to come together. If not under the banner of one party then at least in a spirit of respect and cooperation, marching toward a better life for the 99%. By the way, on tv this morning it was said the 50% of workers earn approximately 26,000 pr yr and the number of millionaires in the US grew by 18% last year. Anybody see any relationship between the two?

  5. DrBill says:

    GIVE US JOBS COMMENSURATE WITH OUR SKILLS OWS wants the same outcome that the Tea Party was founded to accomplish: Just for these few days, we have the power of the movement to demand being put to work building America’s infrastructure, revitalizing her cultural institutions, creating quality driven schools, making our healthcare delivery system ready for 30 million new patient. Tear down the fenses and guide our immigrant population into a cohesive work force that will bring back entry level jobs and drive the path to full participation for so many who only ask to be given a chance and who are are willing to work hard on their way to full citizehship. If we demand a Job Corps and a reasonble wage for workers, that is a simple bipartisan message that can be heard around the world and cuts across party lines. The let the pols come forward on that one issue alone. “This land was made for You and Me.”

  6. SteveHanken says:

    To think now is not the time for a third party makes me wonder, if not now, when? If becoming “progressive” ends up like what happened in 1912, then nothing will change, you can quit now and let the facists have it all. We don’t need the white house, we need a voting bloc in the house and senate that will tie things up and force compromise between the parties. The horse race that has been the presidency is a thinly vailed football contest with only a veto as the prize. Taking the fight to those races where the potential of a win can happen with votes instead of money would make sense, and leverage every discussion, every bit of legislation, by simply having enough key votes to wrangle the power back into the hands of the people makes the most sense. If we take out either Republican or Democrat, makes no difference in my mind, but getting that leverage started will make more of a difference over all.

  7. DianneLee says:

    The Tea Party taken over DC because those who believed in what Obama preached lost faith in him. They expected him to walk into Washington and everyone would be required to do as he said. It doesn’t work that way. He was elected President not crowned King. This allowed a minority of voters who did vote to dictate the terms of legislation, because the choice was between doing things the way the House Republicans demanded or doing nothing at all. I’m not disappointed in Obama, and anyone who is is politically naive. I will work for, vote for and donate money to him, because if the Tea Party continues to control the Republicans they will continue to work against the Middle Class and for Wall Street. I don’t believe Obama wants to destroy Medicare and social security, and continue to rig the system to benefit the rich at the expense of the Middle Class. I am sure that the Republicans will do exactly that if given the chance to do so.

    A vote for the Green party or any other minor party is wasted– actually it isn’t, it’s worse than wasted. You may be sending a message, but if you vote against the major party that you support the most, you are helping the other party win. So, the party you support the least wins, and you send a message to the party you support– but they aren’t in office, so what good did it do? Vote for the party that actually has a chance to win, then work to make them more of what you want them to be. It’s how the Tea Party took over the Republican party, so obviously it works. And, at this point, we have more power, by like two or three times than the Tea Party had on its best day, so we don’t need to form our own party. We already own one.

  8. StefanB says:

    A third party would certainly be a bad idea for the coming elections, since a year is not enough time to get the kind of momentum and name recognition it would need to do anything more than split the Democratic vote. Even five years might not be enough, but I think that sooner or later we need to switch to more proportional representation that favors more than just the two parties. And that’s something that neither congressional Democrats nor Republicans are going to want.

  9. treehouse says:

    Don’t endorse, reject or allow yourselves to be co-opted by EITHER party. Focus on developing a message that most Americans support (you’re already halfway there with ‘get the cash out of politics’; I’m a moderate Republican and you have my enthusiastic support) and put it out there. Let the politicians go on the record as endorsing or rejecting your message. Forming a third party at this juncture will split the progressive/reform vote and guarantee something horrible like ‘Congratulations, President Cain!’ That is an option to exercise if neither party embraces the new agenda.

    In other words, put the ball in their court. Let them go on record saying ‘no, I like corporate bribes’, and then start hurting them.

  10. dmcrane says:

    I do not want OWS to become part of any Party. It should stay as it is, pushing progressive goals and trying to change hearts and minds where possible. If OWS were to become a third party, I think it would lose most of its participants, and I would be one. I am not interested in futile posturing but in results. I don’t care what the Press or the pundits say about OWS because each of us know why we are involved. While we all want to change the system, most of us believe we can do it with the vote if we give our current President a strong, liberal, and filibuster-proof House and Senate. There is nothing we can’t fix if we get strong control of both. We do not want it all, but we do want “All” to have enough, and perhaps a little extra to smile about as well. We want the young, and sick, and old, and disabled to be cared for properly. We want eudcation for our children and healthcare for all. We do not have anything against being rich, but we do not want to be a rich people in a poor and angry country. I grew up Republican but I don’t recognize the selfish mindset of the majority of the current Republicans. I am sorry to say, they are making all the same mistakes they’ve been making since the early 1900’s and it has been a disaster for us every time. It is indeed time to throw the dirty bathwater out, but we do not need to destroy the house to change the water.

  11. Ginico says:

    For God’s sake guys . . . open your eyes! The recent block against keeping teachers, etc employed and a .5% surcharge on incomes over $1 million should bring up all kinds of red flags. Republicans understand that any jobs kept or added will circulate money through the economy, which will create demand and create more jobs. They want to inflict as much pain possible INTO the economy because they know that the sitting President will be blamed, and their own behavior will be given a pass. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN! Record filibusters against this President tell the whole story. It’s time to put them on notice to start working toward helping to right this economy or get out of office! And bills like the HOUSE is passing to give a pass for more pollution in our air and water to big Corporate interests in the name of job creation is a BIG farce and will keep us tied to fossil fuel indefinitely, a boon to their big OIL BUDDIES!

  12. Kassym says:

    Maybe OWS candidates who believe in changing the politics as they are now should run on BOTH tickets. People who care about America and not the 1%’s profits. It appears that there are supporters from both parties within the OWS movement. I am a registered Republican but do not support that party as they are today. I don’t blame people for not running in this hateful atmosphere. It would scare me. Candidates are attacked viciously and people just make things up about them to hurt their chances and spread it quickly on the internet. Look at what they have done to Obama [who I believe IS trying to support the people]. I wouldn’t know how to go about getting into the race. Maybe someone should talk about that or put up classes on the internet to attract good candidates in areas where a change of representative is seriously needed. We just need honest people who care more about people than profits and are tough enough to “take a lickin and keep on tickin” to quote an old Timex commercial. I know that dates me but it is a factor. There must be knowledgable people who could put something like that together in this techology-abundant age.

  13. PopularSovranty says:

    “Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.”

    — Steve Jobs, CEO, Apple Computer and Pixar Animation Studios
    June 12, 2005 Stanford commencement speech.

    “…don’t waste it living someone else’s life.”

    For the 4,477 soldiers who have died in Iraq (32,159 wounded), and after ten years, the 1,802, and also still counting, who have perished in Afghanistan (with 11,917 wounded), the worst kind of waste has been realized: losing arms and legs, and dying for someone else’s life, usually foreign and corrupt, for someone else’s voice, imposed with wealth and privilege to form slithering policies of wrongful entanglements that have brought death to the thousands of soldiers and their families, and in bits and pieces for the nation, as well, as the defense industries of the military-industrial complex grow their profits and wealth.

    President Obama, marking the 10th anniversary of the Afghan war, the longest in American history, said, “we are closer than ever to defeating al Qaeda and its murderous network;” this, as Afghanistan’s president says bringing security to his people (read, his government) has been a failure of the U.S. and his (Karzai’s) administration. And, like Nixon and Johnson before him, the president looks to the future involvement based upon responsibly ending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “from a position of strength.” Thousands of U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam as those presidents prolonged the war that they could not win, should never have started, looking for the unattainable “position of strength” or “peace with honor,” before finally ending the conflict and the ever-mounting deaths. This is the deadly “noise of others’ opinions” that repeats, today, as government “speak,” echoing the hollow, future promises of yesterday, where history holds no lessons for the arrogant and the proud, or those fearful of confronting mistakes and their consequences, as the bloodletting continues… to no worthwhile end. At least, the stubborn stance of the Iraqi regime has forced the president to honor his promise for a near-complete pull-out of troops from that latest national grave site, provided courtesy of the Bush administration and a Republican party that still proposes spending blood for motives of capitalist expansionism and profit.

    “Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.”

    That noise is also manifest in the voices Americans hear in their politics, and those they do not, the voices bought and paid for, imposed upon the nation in sound-bites, party lines, and propaganda, through unbalanced leverage of wealth and position, detached from any sense of community or social responsibility and spread through the biased, constraining control of vast media consolidations, to limit voices, to quell regulations, to narrow opportunities, to channel prosperity, buy votes and perpetrate travesties like turning corporations into political entities, empowered to overcome the many voices of the individuals who are the solitary, collective “People” for whom the Constitution, now so contorted by the Roberts Supreme Court, was penned to promote and protect.

    Nothing will change for the better, no measure taken will make a difference, unless first, above all else, the election machine that spits out a corrupt, insulated, bought-and-paid-for government is detached from the tender of greed and avarice that fuels it: campaign contributions.

    The Wall Street protestors are on the wrong track when they focus anger on bankers and the wealthy. You don’t blame the bear for killing the man who gets too close to the cubs—you blame the man. Those financial “takers” are being human, doing what opportunity allows and greed compels for them, doing what comes naturally, succumbing to human weakness and vice, the very characteristics of which the Founders so clearly recognized as unchangeable and dangerous, and against which they knew only a “democratic government,” with checks and balances, serving and responsive to the common good, could prevail. What they could not foresee was a society so fraught with diversions aside from work: TV, games, malls, clubs and other avenues for self-indulgence and distraction of citizens in matters of no consequence to the foundation of their lives. The activities of citizens in the Founders’ time were centered upon occupation, neighbors, government and learning. The protestors should be angry at themselves, for not paying attention to things that matter so much, for paying too much attention to trivia, for waiting so long to see and to object, for letting it go this far, get this bad. And they should be angry at their legislators, most for not having the intellect to see the problem and/or the strength of character and ethics to turn away from the system or change it and uphold the Constitution.

    But the seemingly, awakening sight of the demonstrators on Wall Street, growing to other cities, points out how all democratic governments are vulnerable, especially to apathy and ignorance, heightened when the unwritten branch of government, the “Fourth Estate” press, is swept from the streets and airways into a very few, towering centers of control, killing objectivity, repressing the reporting of independent investigation, limiting the inputs and outlets. The Federal Communications Commission, politically staffed by Republican presidents, accomplished most of this reduction during the Reagan and Bush terms. The tentacles of control writhed out from the few electronic-media conglomerates, spread with the growth of cable, the internet, and the means to access it, and are made all the more powerful as, at the same time, the market forces of media change began to diminish and eventually strangle many of the independent providers of the airwaves and printed page.

    Party control of the fund-raising and election process, from districting to post-election committee appointments, is separated from the view or control of the People, forming a government that is built in cloakrooms and behind closed doors, upon favors and the cash-and-carry success of legislators and their mini-machines, an industry that creates and reenforces extremism and gridlock while robbing the People of their representatives’ most important asset: the time that is spent on fundraising, from strategy meetings to time spent with donors, pursuing donors, servicing the desires of donors and looking to the future, not to secure the long-term policies needed by the nation, but rather to acquire the campaign funds and promises that will assure the next election’s continuation of the entire, abortive process.

    “I only have two years,” think the House representatives, “and I have to make sure I put in the time and effort required to win the next election, above all else.” This is the situation facing the People, and what chance is there for productive, constituent-responsive government to address complex, long-term problems when the highest priority is to do whatever, twist whatever, say whatever, half-truths or outright lies in the rush to get re-elected, and to spend the working hours of at least six months of the two-year term working toward that end?

    When the Constitution was framed, the population and the challenges and diversity of America’s interests and needs were such that elections every two years for representatives was not a burden and was effective enough for government’s purposes. But times have changed, and as the population has grown, the number of representatives has not increased in proportion, which contributes to the unresponsive government in two ways: reducing constituent accountability through increased difficulty of access as the number of constituents for each representative increases, and increasing the power of representatives, through the increased number of constituents they represent and from whom they are inherently more insulated. And since the Founders erred in not providing a Constitutional mandate for a per-capita increase in House seats, no member has incentive to initiate a change that will reduce his or her power by providing additional seats to make representative government as close and accessible and responsive to the People as the Founders intended it to be for the House.

    But more than population has changed. The complexity of life, and of all the attendant prerequisites of government responsibility to provide for public liberty, welfare, and safety have increased as well, and two years is no longer a sufficient period for representatives to become familiar with and effectively carry out their committee assignments, let alone meet their legislative and constituent-relations responsibilities (fund-raising time is not included because it should and must be eliminated), or to be able to look ahead to the nation’s future and develop policies meant to address problems and challenges extending over the horizon.

    Just think of committees. They are created to divide the focus of the total membership of the House and Senate on individual problems and goals, to provide a means by which legislators can become expert in the industries and activities that fall within the scope of their committees’ charters and thereby guide their colleagues in passing useful legislation. This is how a legislator’s committee-responsibility time is supposed to serve the People, by developing the expertise to provide effective legislation to provide for safety and promote prosperity—a balance in which safety must always carry the greatest weight, but often has not, as one tragedy after another in every decade of American modern history attests. Often, legislators, especially in the House, have not become knowledgeable enough about the complexities that exist within the activities their committees are intended to oversee, and just as often, they have only turned an ear to the interests of the lobbyists for those industries, always at their ears, and often on their staffs, sitting at their right shoulders in hearings. This is how disasters, like Gulf oil spills, sub-prime-loan-deflation recessions, commuter-airline crashes, drug and food illnesses and deaths, and mining explosions, and Shuttle disasters, etc., etc., happen, and why government is mostly reactive to these disasters instead of proactive to prevent them. This will improve, if and when legislators’ ears are ever freed of lobbyists and their time freed from fundraising, and the revolving door of legislators, turned by two-year elections, is slowed—a revolving door that is self-serving to the election machine, not the People.

    Today, policies are designed to meet the needs of what will get a representative re-elected 24 months after the oath of office is taken, or a president in four years, all eyes on the next election after three. America’s future depends upon better governance than has been serving the privileged and wealthy in this generation, and legislators, even free of fundraising, need more time to master their responsibilities serving America, and everyone needs fewer elections. A constitutional amendment extending the terms of office of the House of Representatives to four years, the president to six, and to preserve the Founders’ intent for overlapping stability, the Senate to eight, must be included with the ban on campaign contributions. And to insure that the behavior and performance of representatives is not separated by longer terms from the people, to whom the House chamber is intended to be closest, or left to the ineffective, internal rules of the House, a district-level recall procedure must also be specified which provides the people of a representative’s district reasonable means by which to stage a recall election at any time.

    These are the first changes upon which Americans must focus. When accomplished, other necessary changes will more easily follow, like ending the income-tax code in favor of a value-added tax, with fixed exclusions for medical products and services, most food, and some non-food-derived fuels, and percentage levels within categories of goods to insure fair-share payments for all and loopholes for none; and unwinding the knot of media consolidation that muffles voices and constricts the oversight of investigative journalism; and also reining in the dangerous and unnecessary military expansionism and unconstitutional, presidential military authority that has been allowed by Congress to develop, and which has cost America so much in this generation and which is irrevocably bleeding into the next.

    In that commencement address, Jobs also said:

    “…you can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.”

    Looking back, the connected dots form a clear enough picture of how government in America has changed for the worse. The underlying causes are often less clear, hidden in things like secret, pre-war, vice-presidential “energy” meetings. But Jobs wasn’t entirely correct when he said that the dots of our futures can only be derived through trust, at least, where our political futures may lead. That’s because we have a precious gift to guide us, one that was fashioned by minds as great as any this nation has ever produced, men with sharp insights into the pitfalls of human nature and interaction, and who, through times of the greatest possible danger and uncertainty, and divisive discord, devised a system that would both protect against the worst abuses of man’s nature and preserve the greatest opportunity for realizing the hopes for future and liberty and prosperity, for themselves, their children, and for generations to follow. That is the Constitution, defining a system of government, nonetheless so reviled by the “dogma” of Republicans, which the Founders made for the preservation of their heritage, and ours, if it is not spit upon or relegated to be a relic, encased in gas and glass and displayed to tourists, as it has been with the power grabs of presidents, the failures of Congress to jealously guard its powers, and the axe-swings taken by the conservative-Republican majority on the Supreme Court, which have chopped two of democracy’s three foundations, popular sovereignty and political equality, into splinters.

    For this purpose, of following and connecting the dots to restore a bright future for America, all that need be done is to follow the Constitution, and the money, to purge it from all influence in government activity.

    Tweet this:

    Why is democracy dying? Think of gov’t/conservative-court effect on its framework: popular sovereignty/political liberty/political equality.

    Then this:

    If any one leg breaks, democracy falls. Each leg has been under sustained Republican attack since Nixon was president—a generation of decay.

    cc (via web forms) October 7, 2011: White House, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Rob Portman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steve Chabot, Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Charles Schumer, Sen. Jim Webb, Sen. Al Franken, Sen. Richard Durbin, Rep. John Boehner, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Zoe Lofgren; Rep. Ed Markey, House Financial Services Committee office, more…

  14. tom4547 says:

    The movement of Occupy Wall Street viewed as I see it, that they have so many, many grievances and no Table of Contents. What order of their grievances, are they going to tackle. Wall Street & Banking reform has not worked; too many loop holes as this seems to be their target that no one has gone to jail.

    Occupy Wall Street has more or less denounced the Democratic Party; Yet hold back incase that they maybe need President Obama later. [Don’t burn bridges that you may have to cross]

    Occupy Wall Street View

    As stated, Occupy Wall Street held back from rejecting participation in the current American political system Wednesday night when the General Assembly — the group’s main decision-making body — tabled an official resolution to refuse support for both the Democratic and Republican parties.
    “The Democratic and Republican parties do not represent the people because they’ve been bought and corrupted by Wall Street, outsiders, corporations, and special interests. Occupy Wall Street does not have the full support of their candidates from either party.
    But there’s no variance in the Republicans that have only one agenda [All or nothing] they may state jobs, but they legislate anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-middle class, anti-poor, anti-jobs and not raise taxes.[doctordoctor I agree with you]

    One must separate President Obama from the corruption of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
    President Obama has passion for Occupy Wall Street. That Occupy Wall Street in all their grievances, are the same as his beliefs from what I have seen. Occupy Wall Street feels that President Obama health care is over and above the need and costing us to much.(let it work) Wall Street and the banking reforms have not worked. Yet the GOP in general will do everything possible to make sure that President Obama will only be a one term President.
    I must stand up for President Obama and re-elect. If the Republicans win the Presidency, We loose and will get the same political stance as we have been getting, from the Republican Party & Tea Party (NO WE CAN’T)
    So in conclusion the Democratic Party should separate it self from the Occupy Wall Street and let them come to President Obama for support and not to the hill. The Democratic Party should stand firm on President Obama’s Agenda The question is, can Occupy Wall Street trust Obama more than the House of Representatives and Senate? I would say yes.

  15. Michael says:

    The real enemy is wallstreet,they pump money in to the political system to affect our lives.Take for instance the Kock Bros.they are backing herman cain,cain use to wrok for them.Recently they use their money to change wake county school system,this system was one of the top intergrated school system in the country.Now they are trying to turn back the clock to the time when it was segerated,again this right-wing group of the top 1%.

  16. Sweetheart says:

    I Really do believe that the Republican Party is doing all they can do to stop the President from been elected for the second term. And it is a shame , I know that every body in there State is not working. Family cannot pay there bills losing their homes , i know that those people are calling their office ,and they are doing nothing about it. The reason is simple they are rich and they are telling us we do not care about you. But they are forgetting one thing. We are the people that put them there and we are the people can remove them. Well i do not know about you but i have 6 children i am tired . The PRESIDENT.send the job the bill to the Congress they shot it down, pointing finger at the PRESIDENT . Saying it is his fault , well since he is the COMMANDER and CHIEF, he get blame for everything . Well you cannot blame him for not passing the job bill that is the Congress they just want you to stay in the back they do not want you to come to the front if they did want you to come to the front they would pass the job bill , they already made up in their mind to stop all of the job bill. But you cannot keep a good man down. Hats of to the PRESIDENT , now i can refinance my house for a lower rate.Well thank be to God for executive order. I know you boys which you could stop that , you cannot stop that dudes. You guys are nothing but HATERS. News flash this election is not just for the PRESIDENT . Some of you are also in the race to be reelected how do you all think that you guys are going to get reelected after rejecting the job bill. I personally think it is time to send every Republican packing. They do not deserve to be the voice of nobody but themselves. They are heartless and they are a bunch of Haters. Pass this bill now.People need to go to work , to take care of their families. What make you think that you are the only ones with families. Well we have families also and they have the same bad habits just like your family we all like to eat. So all you all are doing is keeping the food of our tables , and loading yours do you think that is right? Everybody has to eat.We cannot wait any-longer we need you to act now not tomorrow but now , pass the job bill now put us back to work.And you all can stop from trying to stop the PRESIDENT , reelection he is going to win and there is nothing you guys can do about it . So pass the job bill now. And lets get this economy moving again. Pass this job bill now.

  17. Victor Estrada says:

    WE do not support parties but individuals there are many blue-dog dems that are not progressive. Greed and control of our political system by the very wealthy must be stopped (one person one vote). If you want to be wealthy thats your business but greed and corruption is the people’s business. To not be poor is part of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. When everyone is doing well than everyone is doing well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.