Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Right and left come together over common ground

Posted 6 years ago on June 14, 2013, 3:39 a.m. EST by exclamationmark (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Most people here don't believe it's possible to create the 99%, a combination of people from right and left fighting against common problems like corruption in politics.

The comments made in regards to Edward Snowden show that unifying people over common ground is possible.

I say shame on occupiers who try to divide our ranks by calling some "right wing shills".

Chris Hedges, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck, Matt Drudge, former Governor Gary Johnson, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Michael Savage, Jesse Ventura, ....

All these people, from various political affiliations, have praised Snowden for exposing government secrets.

This is proof positive that we agree on some issues, and that we could form the 99% if we avoided divisive issues. If we could only concentrate on money in politics.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

So, if we all just discuss those things that you want us to discuss to make your job easier then it would work. You make another ID, have a faux conversation and then claim victory. Gotta love transparency.

That's not coming together. That's straight up coopting. I don't care how many ways that you try to twist this, it always has the same end result.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

Yes, the citizens united crap has got to go.

It's nothing to do with political leanings.

Corporate personhood has destroyed any chance of true representation from political representatives.

The prez signing indemnity waivers for bio-tech corporate bribers, amidst the expose that GE crops are deadly, is evidence enough for me.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Mr. Puppet?

Why is it OK for you to name call anyone you like?

It's actually quite laughable that you group Moore and Hedges in with the rest of those on your list.

BTW, I'm still waiting, not only for your list of "right" wingers in support, but for your quote of me calling you a "right wing shill".

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8218) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

I welcome any willing to support a raise in minimum wage, a raise in the tax rates for the wealthy (to pay off the debt), willing to support medical care based on need not "worth". Do you think there are any on the right that feel the same way?

[-] 0 points by joshC (-4) 6 years ago

Perhaps not. But I would reply that Occupy cannot achieve every goal under the Sun. Its purpose should be to remain apolitical and concentrate on issues that can unite the right and the left, like working together to put pressure to remove corruption in politics. This is its force. The idea to unite the 99% over common ground.

The social issues you raise are important, but, in my opinion, they should be fought in the theater of politics with a political party, and in the streets with affinity groups to help the unfortunate.

I fear that if Occupy spreads its wings to wide, the focus will be lost, and, with it, what makes it so special.

It's a double edged sword. If we raise all kinds of issues that the right does not agree with, then we lose them. And, this means we also lose them for the issues on which they could participate with us, like removing corruption in politics, and aiming towards more transparency in government. The more issues we try to deal with, the more division we create.

Ideally, another group would be started to deal with far left issues like the implementation of socialism.

This spreading of our actions has weakened Occupy dearly.

The strongest movements in history were always those that had a few clear goals, usually one. Occupy started with corruption in Wall Street, but then spread out all over the map.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8218) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

It's central purpose was and is to address wealth inequality to dilute that for popularity is to die.

[-] 0 points by jollyholly (-15) 6 years ago

I don't think we need to dilute that at all. There are poor people from all political affiliations, and a lot of this inequality is due to corruption in politics and in business. We could certainly present the problem in a way that would get the backing from potentially anyone with any political affiliation.

Why annihilate the potential support of right wingers with name calling? I don't understand this at all. If a right winger comes here, just use proper argumentation and explain what Occupy is in a calm fashion, just like you would with anyone who doesn't understand what the protest is all about. They certainly are allowed to agree or not. There's no need to call people names and use profanity. Especially names that are labels like "right wing shill" designed to attack about half the country in one broad stroke.

I want right wingers to come here and discuss issues. What's the point of always preaching to the choir? It's good to be able to interact with people that have different opinions. At worse we'll disagree, at best some of them might change their mind and join our ranks. Certainly, there's no need to attack them with stereotypes. Every individual is complex. You can't just box people into left or right. Life isn't that simple.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8218) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Like I said above:

I welcome any willing to support a raise in minimum wage, a raise in the tax rates for the wealthy (to pay off the debt), willing to support medical care based on need not "worth". Do you think there are any on the right that feel the same way?

Or how about this, public funding for public elections, to get the corruption out anyone from the right ready?

[-] -1 points by jollyholly (-15) 6 years ago

Your question was answered above. I agree with that answer.

Those issues are important, but we should use another group than Occupy to fight for them. Why not form a political party, or push one on the left to adopt these ideas?

Bringing such issues in Occupy only serves to divide our ranks. Furthermore, these are issues which are better addressed by political parties who can put real pressure to change laws, not by Occupy which is a protest movement that doesn't make demands.

The more issues we tackle, the more we become separated. In the end, if Occupy takes a stance on many varying issues, then what we've become is another political party. Political parties can never serve the 99%. They only serve those who agree with the platform.

It's much stronger to take a stance on a few issues that everybody can agree on. There are issues of the sort, and Occupy is the perfect vehicle to tackle them.

All great protests which succeeded had one or a few clear goals. It never works when you start wanting to tackle everything under the Sun.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


is an easy goal that prevents abuse

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8218) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Someone should start a "no war" movement, there was one in the sixties.

I was so happy to see a movement born that addresses wealth inequality, we have never had one of those before I sure hope it stays on focus and gets something done about the biggest threat the world faces, Monarchy.

[-] 1 points by joshC (-4) 6 years ago



[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 6 years ago

I say shame on people who seek to make others think the way they do.

What some people call divisiveness, I call diversity.

56% of americans think that Edward Snowden is a traitor.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I doubt that percentage knows who he is but good look with that story