http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhWGu2YaBF4

I've heard “Oh, it is the same either way” and supporting a third party candidate compared to the analogy of abstinence

"It's kind of like abstinence only birth control you get to feel really proud about the fact that you stand by what/who you believe in while you completely side step taking responsibility for practical responsibilities that everyone has to live with day to day."

But as Jesse LaGreca points out, the corruptions starts with the corporations so that's the part to focus on, after all to deal with a "vampire squid, it's not the tentacles that need to be cut out, it's the brains"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/28/1151536/-The-Art-of-the-Possible

"We need to look at what is possible from the place where we are standing right now, not the place where we wish we were standing. I understand the argument that unless people on the left can credibly threaten to withhold their votes, they cannot push the Democratic party to the left. Let's look at the argument in another way. If you withhold your vote and Obama loses, do you think you will be able to bring the Democratic party to the left? I agree that we need to move in that direction, but I do not see where voting third party or abstaining will accomplish that goal. We have good indication that Romney is not the moderate Republican he occasionally pretends to be. I believe that during a Romney presidency the Overton window will move even farther to the right. With tax cuts and military spending, he will run up the deficit and the thus force even future administrations to cut spending on social programs and infrastructure whether or not they want it. He will deregulate industries, including the financial industry, which will result in greater ecological degradation and increased risk of yet another financial collapse. We will be generations digging out of that hole if the climate holds out long enough to allow us to do it.

It is quite clear that we are not where we would like to be. My own feeling is that shortly after the election, it would be productive to have a brainstorming session, if not here, then elsewhere, to throw out ideas about what actions could possibly be productive. My own guess is that different people will opt for different actions depending exactly where on the ideological spectrum he or she lies and what his or her particular situation, interests and abilities permit. I am not at all in disagreement with the fact that we have not been getting the results that we want. What will get us those results, I don't know."

After the election the OWS protests will be even more important to put pressure on getting those results, that way it keeps the attention focused on the continued corruption.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs_0hxToe8s

While I'd agree that Romney's performance in the debate should be taken as seriously as DWTS with all the lies he told. I'd bet he wouldn't last as long as Tom Delay did who was eliminated on the 3rd night of the 9th season of DWTS

Maybe it would help to lighten the load of your cynicism to know that some progress has been made on "the obvious sob's actually went to jail sometime.....ever." because of this sentencing. At least it's a start

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/rajat-gupta-sentenced-insider-trading_n...

"The former Goldman Sachs director was sentenced on Wednesday to two years in prison, followed by another year of parole, and ordered to pay a $5 million fine. He was convicted in June on insider-trading charges, following a trial that included testimony from Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

“With today’s sentence, Rajat Gupta now must face the grave consequences of his crime – a term of imprisonment," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement. "His conduct has forever tarnished a once-sterling reputation that took years to cultivate.

"We hope that others who might consider breaking the securities laws will take heed from this sad occasion and choose not to follow in Mr. Gupta’s footsteps," Bharara added.

But the government is clearly making a notable effort to stop it, winning convictions of more than 70 people during a wide-ranging, three-year assault, notes Peter Lattman of the New York Times.

"When one looks at the nature and circumstances of the offense, the picture darkens considerably, some prison time was necessary as a deterrent to other inside-traders." Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote, adding that "his criminal acts represented the very antithesis of the values he had previously embodied."

Gupta was convicted of giving tips to another convicted inside-trader, former hedge-fund manager Raj Rajaratnam, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison. In Rakoff's words, Gupta's tip was "the functional equivalent of stabbing Goldman in the back."

But doesn't it start unraveling after that? As they say "when there's chum in the water, the sharks come out to feed" so after beginning to " throw his employees under the bus" the secrets will show and more evidence shared to get more convictions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4BxueYtcG4

After all that's how Watergate got started with a few testimonies like Howard Hunt that led "all the way up the chain of command"

Well OWS really did "get the ball rolling" to grab attention since no one was even talking about it before that, so maybe to increase the pressure the crimes have to get more exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL6ZofirChk

The media loves sensationalism and that show "To Catch a Predator" was fairly popluar, so maybe if they used the same format on Wall Street with a new show like "To Catch an Insider Trader" or "To Catch Money Laundering" that would put more focus on them.