|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
What's the alternative? Voting for a Republican who supported the bailout? Ron Paul - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
How right is it to complain that they wont give Republicans a chance when that would lead to an exasperation of the problems they are protesting about Ron Paul
You also should remember that while Obama voted for the bail out, he did so in the oft lauded spirit of "bipartisanship". He did so because that's who were his main campaign contributers. The financial system knew what they were facing and knew which president to back in 08 that would support the bailout.
Many will likely hold their noses and do it again just like those on the right are going to do for Gingrich or Romney. Ron Paul - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do you think we wouldn't get bailouts under a Paul administration?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Why do you think we wouldn't get bailouts under a Paul administration?
A few reasons: He hasn't accepted campaign contributions from them, esp. not the large majority of his campaign money. So he doesn't owe them. He has expressed the fact that he didn't/doesn't support the bailout. He gave alternative ways around it. But me mentioning him had more to do with an alternative to the typical Rep/Dem choices. Even though he is running on the republican side, we know his true colors. He is a republican that didn't support the bailout, that's what Mod was looking for. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He hasn't accepted campaign contributions from them, esp. not the large majority of his campaign money. So he doesn't owe them. Well, no, he has taken contributions from big Wall Street banks. And don't you think he takes contributions from somebody who stands to lose if the American economy goes tits-up because no company can short-term borrow the money they need to make payroll and expenses? Don't you think a Ron Paul campaign that had enough money to actually win would certainly have taken contributions from a large number of such businesses?
He has expressed the fact that he didn't/doesn't support the bailout. Does that mean it wouldn't happen? How does Ron Paul explain what would have happened when no American corporation would have been able to pay its workers - an impossibility without a functioning banking system? Surely he's not an idiot. A Paul administration would have made the bailouts, because the alternative was clearly economic suicide. That he's opposed to bailouts now is just political opportunism - he knows that he can take a hard line against them because his vote and advocacy can't possibly make a difference. In a world where he has veto power, however, he inevitably signs off on the massive bailouts.
But me mentioning him had more to do with an alternative to the typical Rep/Dem choices. Ok, but in what way is a creationist, pro-life, pro-business white male southern Republican an "alternative" to the usual choices? Ron Paul is the same guy the Republicans always run, just shorter and with worse hair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I get your grip with him, I read it in the other thread. My libertarian side clashes with my science side, so I can't fully support him. I can't fully support any of them.
Mod asked for a Republican candidate who didn't support the bailout, Ron Paul is one. Where's the evidence for the Wall Street banker support though? I haven't seen that. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where's the evidence for the Wall Street banker support though? I haven't seen that. Here's a website where you can see each candidate's top contributors. Ron Paul's support is mostly vet organizations (and active military, interesting for a candidate who says he favors shrinking the defense budget) but there's some Wall Street fatcat money in there, too.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N0000590...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Ron Paul The point is that it is not about a person. Its not about Obama, Ron Paul, anyone. Its about corporate influence in our politics. Not even a president Ron Paul would have unilateral authority to rewrite campaign finance law. Electing the right person to one office doesn't fix problems. Fixing the way we do the electing will.BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Its about corporate influence in our politics.
Some corporate backing is fine. Some influence is fine. It's the enormous amount that Obama received, vs someone like Ron Paul. My point is, to solve the corporate influence, vote for a president without some much corporate backing. However, without campaign reform we will not see that.
Fixing the way we do the electing will. I say, not only that but, fix the way they're allowed to campaign. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is hardly an option at this time (he's not definitely on any ballots for national power at this time). And he comes with his own perceived negatives which may well outweigh what positives we may feel about him. If he runs on a Republican Ticket, he'll be presiding over a government that supports the bailouts. If he runs as an independent, he almost certainly won't win. Jesse Ventura has got more in common with the OWSers than Ron Paul, and is probably equallly likely to win.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
While I agree with you, this is somewhat different. There's really no clear objective to the occupy wall street movement. What exactly do they want changed and how? The same could have been said of the Civil Rights movement. There were different people with different goals, different ideas and differring levels of ambition and scope. They want a system which serves the interests of the few, changed to serve the interests of the many.
Yeah, it's still burning strong, but with no clear direction the movement is fated to die down Again, this is basically true of any movement that's subsequently been succesful in making change. It starts off as an emotive reaction to a perceived injustice. Only over the course of several years (and only perceivable with historical hindsight) do definable objectives become clearer. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
well thanks for the link, though its still pretty funny. turns out there was one in Mexico City. 250 people showed up (not bad for a city of 20,450,000 people). that sounds like a BIG DEAL there. did you see the numbers in Tokyo? the Japanese are mad about this!100 people out of a population of 32,450,000 (the largest on EARTH). Wow this is a global phenomenom!?! Not forgetting the 10,000 in Santiago, the 2,000 in Porto Alegre, the 1,500 in Tel Aviv, the 8,000 in Brussels, the 10,000 in Zagreb, the 3,000 in Copenhagen, the 3,000 in London, the 2,000 in Paris, the 10,000 in Berlin, the 2,400 in Dusseldorf, the 5,000 in Frankfurt, the 4,000 in Athens, the 200,000 in Rome, the 2,000 in Amsterdam, the 20,000 in Lisbon, the 20,000 in Porto, the 4,000 in Ljubljana, the 400,000 in Barcelona, the 500,000 in Madrid, the 20,000 in Malaga, the 100,000 in Valencia, the 2,000 in Melbourne, the 3,000 in Sydney, and the 3,000 in Auckland. To name a portion of the more populated protests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
this isn't about the tea party, nice try at deflection (NOT); its painfully obvious you have nothing to add to this. so why don't you go back to lurking and hitting the plus "+" and minus "-" buttons like you always do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Oni writes: Campaign reform, it's the only way. Almost certainly gotta be part of it.
Oni writes: Predicted estimate for this election will be over a billion in campaign contribution FOR EACH CANDIDATE. That. Is. Insane.
Oni writes: Where does that money come from? Wll that is the billion dollar question. Transparency of political funding would be the first step in reforming political funding. At the moment it seems (both here in the UK and even more so in the US) to be a very murky business.
Oni writes: What does that money buy people? Once we know who is paying how much the answers to that question might well be rather more obvious.
Oni writes: How can there NOT BE corporate influence when a presidential campaign requires billions in contribution? I agree. But why does a political campiagn require billions in contributions? Should the amount that can be spent on a campiagn be capped? How should political campaigns be funded? Are there any examples around the world of systems that seem to have got it right? I don't know the answers to these questions. Just throwing them out there as the sort of thing the Occupy movement is asking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's what I haven't understood since the beginning... What are the protester really expecting to happen? To elicit social, and then political change. You think that's working for them? It started out pretty good, but they seem to be getting more and more ridicule these days.
I just don't see any actual results from all this. Seems the ballot box would be a better place to make changes. Just about any movement that's ever succeeded has had people respond to it in this fashion. Of course, since one of the complaints is systematic corruption, the ballot box isn't necessarily the first solution. That's true. And its not like we have somebody good to vote for anyways. All politicians suck. I think its a function of wanting to be a politician. We need that reluctant nominee: "but I don't want to be a politician".., "that's why you're perfect for the job". Rather than all the complaining, I think the efforts would be better spent on the solution. Find some good leaders that will do what you want and tell everyone that these are who we're all gonna vote for.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans are in some way sympathetic to OWS' goals. This is as a result of the movement existing. If politicians cared about what the people think, we should see this reflected in those that are running. The issue, though, is that politicians who should care about what the people think, instead care about those that donate significant sums for their campaign. Yeah, they are complaining about some of the same things that everybody is, but not everybody is "occupying". Too; why Wall Street? That's what I'm getting at: why occupy Wall Street? why occupy Wall Street? It makes sense if we're talking about being pissed at the bankers, but this other stuff doesn't seem to tie into that. At least, its awefully tangential.
Its not like either the banks or politicians are gonna go: "Oops, yeah, we fucked you all. We're sorry. Here's your money back." It's not like the politicians are gonna say "Oops, yeah we disenfranchised you all. We're sorry, ladies, here's your rightful vote" Well, that's hardly analogous, but I don't think your point is lost.
Now obviously, nobody is expecting the corrupt politicians to safeguard or return taxpayers money. But it might be nice if we started voting for people who want to change the system to minimize corruption. It's not easy, perhaps it is not even likely, but that's what movements are traditionally all about: the little people banding together against the power elites and making change happen. Okay, but that's not really the sense I have been getting from the Occupy Wall Street protests. I'm feeling like they're pissed that they got screwed and want some retribution, not that they're out to put a bunch of work into fixing the system itself. Maybe I'm not seeing the right coverage... (no TV, just random internet stuff)
Vote for who? Just about all the candidates on offer are essentially part of the corrupt system. There certainly does not appear enough principled politicians out there to outweigh the power of the greedy opportunists. One of the problems is that being principled is penalized in the system that is being run by the greedy opportunists. So we kinda have the "whose gonna police the police" problem.
What can be done? Well one thing that can be done is gather together and discuss with one another what can be done. To quote from some of the work that is being done in these discussion groups: Maybe its all just really preliminary at this point... I guess I just see all these people bitching in the streets and think they could be doing something more or better and that they should focus their efforts on obtaining some real goals. My 'take it to the polls' comment does seem shallow, and in hind sight I think I was too flippant.
There is also talk within the movement of formally drafting grievances and serving them to the government, and of forming an independent third party if the grievances are not addressed. Yeah, see, this seems better to me. Actually do something, don't just bitch in the streets.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024