Is there an occupy Paris? Moscow? Beijing? Johannesburg? Mexico City? Brasilia? Madrid? Kuala Lampur? Bangkok? Canberra? Nairobi? Karachi? New Delhi? Warsaw? Prague? Riyadh? Tehran? Jerusalem?
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Although, I guess the portests can win the hearts and minds of the voters and get them out there to actually vote. But that isn't really the message I'm getting from them.
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.
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:
quote:Our whole point is we will no longer tolerate politics as usual. The aforementioned goals will be pursued vigorously, both within the system and without. We will be active in the political arena and marching on the streets. We will debate when able and agitate if necessary. We are patient in that we will remain steadfast in our struggle; we will not be patient in the face of typical bureaucratic sloth, political shenanigans, and attempts to nullify progress on these issues.
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.
Which to me seems insane, to protest a bail out given by a president that they'll vote in again.
What's the alternative? Voting for a Republican who supported the bailout? The Party that also did bailouts when they were in power? There are some problems with both parties. But I think most OWSers would agree there are less problems with the Democrats (but not by much - they are more likely to support gay rights, reproductive freedoms etc).
If it seems insane, that's because the system is insane. And that's what's being protested
Surely we are not yet blaming Obama for the fall 2008, prior to either his election or his inauguration financial bailouts?
No, did you think I was? My point was that the Reps did the same thing (bailouts) as the Dems when faced with the crisis. So it doesn't seem to be something that we can really vote against Obama for since that would be essentially giving support to the Reps, who did the same thing. It wouldn't make sense.
The reasons to not withhold a vote for Obama? Those same reasons exist for the Republicans. And the Republicans have managed to provide a few additional ones that are unique to them.
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.
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.
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.
You think that's working for them? It started out pretty good, but they seem to be getting more and more ridicule these days.
Again, that seems to be the pattern with successful movements, so yes, I think that's working for them. As Ghandi is supposed to have said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win".
They've tried ignoring them, I guess you think they are at the laughing at them stage now.
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.
That supposes that complaining about bad leaders is not a stage of finding good ones. I suggest that it is.
Because Wall Street profited while the people had to tighten their belts. The question is, why not Wall Street? Because the people accepted the risk, and Wall Street accepted the profit. They are generally thought to be responsible for the financial meltdown with their reckless speculations and outright fraudulent behaviour.
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.
Follow the money. Wall Street is making a killing. The people are not. And the politicians seem to be being corrupted by all that money.
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.
Then I propose you have gained the wrong sense from the Occupy Wall Street people. I suggest you look more closely. Ever heard of the General Assembly? Working Groups?
Maybe I'm not seeing the right coverage... (no TV, just random internet stuff)
Maybe so. Have you tried occupywallst.org ? Nothing like the horses mouth, I find.
Yeah, see, this seems better to me. Actually do something, don't just bitch in the streets.
Hopefully you now realize that the bitching is an integral part of things. Anger is a tool that all movements have employed. Either way, at least you now know that it isn't just anger. There are ideas for action both within the political system and without it.
He's the only one making sense concerning economic issues and foreign policy.
Many of his policies are still counter to the economic views of OWS. I'm not sure the OWS guys support for instance, eradicating Federal spending on education. Nor do I think (though I might be wrong) that OWS tends to believe that the only way for a nation to increase its collective wealth is by increasing its gold supplies.
Furthermore, he has social policies that are generally abhorent to the liberals and independents such as 'Life begins at conception' which not only would seek to outlaw abortion but also if taken literally, would outlaw the pill.
If I had to choose who gets the Republican ticket, it would probably be Ron Paul, but I don't see him being preferable to Obama as far as the OWS movement is concerned.
don't know what you mean by that. Mc Cain did NOT support the bailout
As I said, the point is that the republicans supported the bailout. The democrats supported the bailout. There are a few that did not support the bailout, but even if any of them happened to be running - that doesn't mean anything because both parties still supported the bailout and the new President would probably be presiding over people that supported the bailout. I know this because a majority of politicians supported it in 2008, and most of them are still around I believe.
Furthermore, the more important factors in determining who OWS should vote for would probably be along the following lines:
1. Campaign reform. 2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future. 3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy. 4. In case of crisis, bailout the people, not the banks. If banks must be bailed out, they become the property of the people.
As far as I can tell, the majority of the Republican ticket are for taxing the poor and middle class and against taxing the very wealthy. This seems to be fundamentally opposed to the OWS ethos.
quote:The NYC foreclosure tour and home re-occupation is part of a big national day of action on Dec. 6 that will focus on the foreclosure crisis and protest fraudulent lending practices, corrupt securitization, and illegal evictions by banks. The Occupy movement actions, including eviction defense at foreclosed properties, takeovers of vacant properties by homeless families, and foreclosure action disruptions, will take place in more than 25 cities across the country.
Millions of Americans have lost their homes in the Wall Street recession and one in four homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgages. The 99% is bearing the brunt of a crisis caused by Wall Street and big banks.
That's why, all across the country, Americans have begun standing up to the banks that are trying to evict them. It's already happened in Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and cities and towns across the country. Now, it's happening in Brooklyn. Soon, it will be happening everywhere.
Wall Street and the big banks are making record profits while most Americans are struggling to stay in their homes. They break the law with impunity, but millions of us get served with eviction. They make trillions and get bailouts, while we face record unemployment and record debt.
No more! Our system has been serving Wall Street, big banks, and the one percent.
We are the 99%. We are reclaiming our democracy. And we are reclaiming our homes.
That's a fair point. But he has also stated that it's not the job of the federal government to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Then he's a hypocrite. If life begins at conception, as he claims to believe, then abortion is murder and it fucking well should be up to the federal government to criminalize.
But he's not a hypocrite. He knows it is unlikely he'll get abortion banned federally. But he can achieve the next best thing: Allowing states to ban it. Which many will. And women will die.
I think the average OWS might have something to say about policies that kill women. Even well intentioned ones that have good sounding political theory behind them.
That was in Oct of 2008. But the article in linked to Straggler was him talking in MARCH of 2008 - NY Times - Mc Cain against the Bailout
So he talked against it, but later voted for it. Is this really the person OWS should be giving their vote to?
His vote of the bailout, when he did finally vote for it, also came with a clause
The only clauses that actually count are the ones in the bill. He voted for a bill that did not have the clauses in it (AFAIK), so no matter how much political spin he tried to weave to make it look like he wasn't a sell out, he still voted for the clauseless bailout.
As you can see, what I highlighted was never done.
Probably because it wasn't voted for. The bailout was though. And McCain voted for it. You said he didn't support it, but he did the most fundamental thing to support it that a politician can. He voted for it.
Had he known, as many law makers have now stated, the way the bill would play out, he along with many others, would not have voted for it.
So he's financially short sighted? So he didn't anticipate people would effectively embezzle that money? Is that the vice we should accept in our OWS representative? Actually, I think he's smarter than that. I think he knew the money would go towards more than bailing the banks out, but that it would also go into the back pockets of execs. To avoid looking like a shill, he said some things against it, said his vote had clauses attached. But that's just talk.
So it's not fair to point out that he voted yes, when he specifically laid out the condition for it.
His yes vote was actually unconditional. If it was conditional, and his conditions were not met, he would have voted no or abstained. He voted yes. This means he was happy enough with the conditions as they stood.
Same thing that happened with the invasion of Iraq. In an effort for bipartisanship he voted Yea, but it was conditional.
I'm not sure it was bipartisanship if he voted yes for a policy that was put through by his party's leader, the then President.
2. Strictly enforced regulations of the financial sector to help prevent the public being held as financial hostages in the future.
That's precisely what Mc Cain wanted to do - see quote.
It's what he said he wanted to do, but it is not what he actually did - see vote.*
3. Reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
Mc Cain cut taxes during the Regan Admin.
I have on idea on what planet cutting taxes can be seen as being the reinstatement of high taxes for the particularly wealthy.
The OWS people should have supported Mc Cain in hindsight.
Why? Because he said some stuff that was in line with their politics? Obama said a crap load of stuff that was in line with their politics too!
By your own argument OWS should have voted for Obama. Screw his voting record, he said some things that they agreed with: transparency, anti-corruption, accountability, end of war in Iraq etc. So they should have voted for him!
* really I said that because vote and quote rhyme. It seemed like a good rhetorical flourish. Maybe McCain sponsored a bill that would mean there was strictly enforced financial regulations. I've not heard of it, but I'm not an expert on American politics so I might have missed this.
McCain's real reason for supporting the bill, incidentally, was the same reason just about everybody else gave: Inaction is worse than action. He knew that it was likely to fill the tanks of the helicopters of the elite. But he had no choice. He was just as much held for ransom as the rest of us. Only he has probably got more of that money back from those that profited over the years in 'contributions' than the rest of the US ever will.
Furthermore, I do have some respect McCain, though it might not sound like it. I gained respect, then lost it almost at the same time when he ran for President. He never struck me as being the champion of the little people, it's just that if we are going by what was said - then Obama is just as much a valid choice for the proto-OWSers, if not moreso, than McCain.
abe:
Here's Obama saying some things in line with OWS views with an interview and some editorializing.
The question becomes, will he follow through? Would Ron Paul do those things which you say are in the OWS philosophy? Would McCain? Should the OWSers trust any of these guys? Or are they all about saying one thing, and doing the other, as it benefits them? Should the OWS seek to create a Third Party to challenge this?
I would have thought the key thing next would be to try and build bipartisanship over the big issues. Maybe create a Party that is conservative on social issues (as in, does not seek to make significant changes to social things such as gay marriage, abortion rights etc, this avoids the Ron Paul problem discussed above: The Party's position won't alienate people on one side of the political spectrum), pro-capitalist, but radical on financial reform.
Edited by Modulous, : added footnote
Edited by Modulous, : added video and small rant trying to make sure the thread focus keeps on OWS
™ Version 4.2
