Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I think you will find that most of the hardcore OWSers are pretty critical of Obama. They are probably the ones responsible for his disapproval rating from the left. The reason it is OWS and not ODC is exactly because they feel betrayed by the administration and rightly so.When you ask them what they want to do politically you might as well have passed gas the way they cringe about the situation. They don't want to be in the tank for a candidate. Thats the problem with what happend in 2008. Obama's supporters didn't just go away, they just realize that they should have been backing a set of principles instead of a PERSON.

To elicit social, and then political change. 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. 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. 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.

Expecting? Well that ranges from the desperately naive to the insanely cynical. With everything in-between.The hope, aim I guess, is to instigate change of a sort that seems impossible in the present political context. OK. What results would you like to see? Unless you think things are hunky-dory as they are I suspect that you and the Occupy protesters have more in common than you might suspect.

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?Yeah, it's still burning strong, but with no clear direction the movement is fated to die down.

Broadly (for starters) - Less unaccountable corporate influence and more genuine representation of the electorate. In short taking back democratic power and accountability where it has been eroded.How exactly this is achieved varies from country to country. In the US the role of lobbyists and political financing must be high on the agenda. In London the role of the Corporation of London is a major issue.Even more generally - Making the financial system something that works to the benefit of all rather than society subservient to the needs of a financial system that benefits only a very few.How to achieve this - Well that is a subject of much (at times fascinating and - I have to admit - at other times shambolic) debate.But even without answers I would suggest that the Occupy movement is in many cases at least asking the right questions. Meanwhile our politicians bury their heads in the sand and hope that things will blow over and carry on pretty much as before.

You don't know that, but you do know that it's been over-reported by the media?

I'm not going to explain it.

I accept that they're critical of Obama, but I also feel that they will vote for Obama again. No chance these left leaning OWS'ers will vote republican.Which to me seems insane, to protest a bail out given by a president that they'll vote in again.- Oni

Campaign reform, it's the only way. Predicted estimate for this election will be over a billion in campaign contribution FOR EACH CANDIDATE. Where does that money come from? What does that money buy people? How can there NOT BE corporate influence when a presidential campaign requires billions in contribution?- Oni

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.

Two of the primary things they are protesting are wealth inequality and the corporate influence in politics. 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? They haven't stopped being liberal.You also should remember that while Obama voted for the bail out, he did so in the oft lauded spirit of "bipartisanship". Note also that because he was able to VOTE for it that he did so as a senator under president Bush.Yes the OWSers are liberal and probably many voted for Obama. Many will likely hold their noses and do it again just like those on the right are going to do for Gingrich or Romney. Democracies don't generate perfect solutions and it is unfair to say that they are being inconsistent in their protest.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

I did not think that. I suppose I could have found a different place to attach my comment...