Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We Have A Golden Opportunity To Take Congress

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 27, 2011, 6:12 p.m. EST by GypsyKing (9727)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

American disapproval of Congress has never been as high as it is right now. This gives us a golden opportunity to take congress and get this movements goals accomplished. This should be our major political priority between now and next November. Everyone in OWS needs to know who their Congressional deligation is, and what their voting records are. Every Republican and Blue Dog Democrat, along with their Centerist Democratic Allys needs to be replaced by genuine populists with proven records. We will never get another such chance at making our dreams reality, and doing it fast!

203 Comments

203 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

These people should be impeached for supporting the National Defense Authorization Act. They were sworn to uphold the constitution, not take a shit on it.

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

Denial is the biggest problem that we face. We need to clean out every person in Congress and start with new non-politicians. Every single person in congress is part of the criminal government that is in bed with the Big Corporations and their money. people keep talking about "the elections". We just keep on keeping the fox's in charge of ou henhouse., These elections will be a complete joke without a punchline.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

Agree with you - mostly. Some questions though: how much better would non-politicians fare in Congress? Could they get the work done without the help of lobbyists and pre-assigned professional staffers? How could they be protected against the influence of corporate money? How could we elect non-politicians over the partisan efforts of the two major political parties? I do also advocate the removal of incumbents, but I'm not yet sure that Congress could operate at all with 450 amateurs occupying the seats. Would like to hear more of your ideas on this.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I really don't think non politicians whose heart were in the right place could possibly do worse than the professional politicians we have now. The question of enforcing the incorruptibility of those elected can only be delbt with by the one thing that Americans have consistantly failed to do, and that is to pay attention to the political process.

I don't think we have any easy solutions (not that I am suggesting you are implying we do), just that I want to reitterate the necessity of alertness and ongoing envolvement over the long-haul as being necessary to change this situation.

In other words "we are the change we have been looking for." But only if we are commited.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

Well said. Vigilance, involvement, and persistence, and some degree of cooperation among us.

[-] 0 points by patriot4change (818) 2 years ago

Well I'll be god-damned. I finally find three people with a brain. You three are exactly what I've been suggesting to the OWS people that we need to do. This is the obvious answer... and the ONLY solution. But the kids at OWS just want to camp outside corporate headquarter buildings and hope that somebody gives them each a million dollars. Kids... just kids.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

Tell you what: Use that brain of yours along with your eyes and hands. Go to any search engine and do an image search for OWS protestor signs. Then return here and let us know how many protestors were photographed calling for "a million dollars".

No?

THATS WHAT I THOUGHT.

Say that reminds me.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR

You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?

That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.

So why are we in this mess again?

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its caising economic instability. But they absolutely will not stop.

It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.

Greed kills. It will be our downfall.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

How can we initiate proceedings?

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I couldn't agree more, but first we must get the power and then make the changes. I have felt there were several very powerful tools we could use outside of working through the political sysytem to force change. But none of these tools seem to have aquired general consent. Therefore, with public approval of Congress being so low, we should put our people in. Not too hard a sell under the circumstances.

[-] -2 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

You can't Impeach members of Congress. Only Congress itself can do such a thing so learn the Constitution, Don't take a shit on it.

[-] 2 points by XXAnonymouSXX (455) 2 years ago

Wow interesting comment. It makes you sound ignorant.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Your the one who thinks that Members of Congress could be Impeach. How is my comment ignorant I was merely correcting you on your mistake then satirized your "shit" comment. Do you know the definition of Ignorant. It simply means that you do not know or understand.

God Bless

[-] -1 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Isn't that just priceless?

[-] -1 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Truly is.

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

Not impeach! More along the lines of arrest and trial.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Whatta ya mean "we" white man? "We" don't even have a credible poltical party that "we" can call our own. What "we" do have a golden opportunity to do is occupy more public spaces and set up more GAs. Once 20 or 30 million of us are occupying we can not only tell the Republicans and Democrats to go fuck themselves. We can tell Congress to go fuck itself. Up the revolution. Solidarity forever!

[-] 1 points by anonymoux (70) 2 years ago

Up the revolution! Solidarity! Would only take 50k in the streets to get some serious attention. That would grow exponentialy.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, if I, being a "white man" cannot be part of "We," than "We" aren't going anywhere. I don't like racism, no matter where it comes from, and it might improve your perspecive if you learned to count.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I apologize for the remark regarding race, though I wouldn't exactly call it racism so much as in poor taste. Racial references per se are not inherently racist. Regarding the substance of what I said, and from what I can recall of your previous positings, my larger point is that you seem to be acting like a shill for the Democratic Party. There is nothing morally wrong with that either. I suspect that the vast majority of OWS activists (as opposed to mere supporters) undoubtedly voted for Obama in the last election and now profoundly regret that decision.

I do believe that at some point some movement like OWS or whatever comes along in its wake will have to enter the electoral arena, but what has distnguished OWS as a movement and captured the public imagination is its militant opposition to the status quo, its role as an incipient culture of opposition. If it is to maintain that role, if and when it does adopt and electoral strategy that strategy needs to be subordinated to the militant direct action tactics of the movement. Right now the movement is much much too small to affect the outcome of an electoral campaign in any meaningful sense by working within such a campaign and would much more likely be co-opted by such a campaign rather than add it to its arsenal of militant action.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You have a valid point when you say,"what has distinguished this movement, etc.," I don't really know how to answer that except to say that, firstly, I am no Democratic shill. I am almost as disgusted with them as the Republicans. My concern is in keeping this movement united in the face of every kind of divisionary tactic. Those who single out Obama, for example, are probably mostly division trolls. We must see that in inclusion lies our hope, not exclusion.

I will say this though. People here have seen me as being a Democratic shill, or as being naiive regarding the actual depth of corruption in congress, etc. I would respond by saying that it is not I who am being naiive. This isn't a game here. You don't get into something like this and then let the opposition divide and fracture your numbers, and refuse to cooperate with "evil, tainted Democrats," who are your only political allies, many of whom have been "tainted" by facing the very problem We're complaining about, i.e., that you cannot get any power in the existing system without making compromises.. Anyone who wants to play that "holier then thou" game had better stay out of politics altogether and join the seminary, or better yet, just become a hermit. If you can't compromise even with your only actual political base, then just go home, you don't stand a chance. And one more word. It would be good to really look at the stakes before you decide to play.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been active in social movement politics for nearly 50 years. If I stopped now I wouldn't know what to do with myself. But in my view the opposition is mucn larger than you see it. I would say it includes all corporte power, vitually the entire capitalist class and all the instututions of capitalist society. That would include both the Republican and Democratic Parties, Congress, the executive branch, the Court and the reactionary Constitution itself. That's a lot to contend with and it certainly is no game. It's not likely to be changed even by replacing the entire congress or enacting major amendments to a document as flawed as the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Agreed, that is why I don't think we can rule out ANY avenue of exerting influence short of violence, which would bring on mass destruction on an unprecidented scale. I don't agree with uoy about the Constitution itself. I think it is sound; it just has been completely overruled by corporate power. The question is, HOW do we actually implement the chance we must create?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I think the Constitution is sound too. Extremely sound. That's why it's lasted so long, but I never said it wasn't sound. What I said was that it was reactionary and ultimately anti-democratic. If you don't believe that read the Federalist Papers, the most cogent defense of the Constitution. Among the many arguments in the Federalist are very explicit appeals to the fact that the Constitution is not a democratic document and Madison in particular goes to great lengths explaining the perils of democracy and how the Constitution circumvents that. There's more, of course. Beard's old chestnut, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution is essential and points out just how reactionary and anti-democratic the whole Constitutional project was. The passage of time has done nothing to improve things at its roots. Of course various amendments have been passed to undo some of the most egregious passages, but that's rather like putting a bandaid on a cancer.

The Constitution has not been over ruled by corporate power. Corporate power is built into the Constitution itself. That's what the commerce clause is all about and it is at the heart of the Constitution, but all kinds of other provisions from the separation of powers to bicameralism also prop up the commerce clause which is really the heart of the whole thing,

I think it's a start and imperfect at that but the OWS notion of a GA on every street corner is a start. We need a whole different way of thinking about political power and a whole different way in which people can exercise it directly and collectively on a daily basis. We are a very long way from implementing that but the concept of a GA in every community, work place, school, military barracks, nursing home and prison would be a start,

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Very valid points regarding the Constitution. Any Constitution is a reflection of the will of those who wrote it. But I believe it is better to further reform the existing Constitution than to try to start over from scratch. The primary reason I think so is both practical and political.

Practical, because it's hard enough to fight the corporations without trying to institute a new political system at the same time - political, because I don't think a majority of Americans would even conceivably entertain the instability inherent in such a change at a time like this.

I am with you in your intent to further the power of democracy, but I am more interested in finding solutions that can be realistically implemented given our actual power to make changes.

I don't think Americans will back an idea like direct democracy at this time. However, I see much hope in systems like change.org, and avazz.org; both organizations that are framing direct democratic structures to some real poitive effect. So for me, the jury's still out on where these ideas can ultimately take us.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Constitution is nothing but the superstructure of the superstructure. It is the particular structure of a particular type of rule of a particular ruling class. When the working class comes to power (not a working class party within a bourgeois system--but genuine working class rule--it was once quipped when the British Labour Party came to power that it governed but it did not rule)--when the working class comes to power it will "constitute" that power as differently as the Constitution is from the feudal relations of the 12th century.

Part of the power of the GAs, as weak and as inconsequential as they are, are that they anticipate both a different kind of class rule and the very different kind of institutional structures and institutions that the vast majority will need in order to govern itself. I am not suggesting that a network of GAs in every neigborhood and every work place is where we will necessarily end up in terms of the governing structures of a new society. Rather, we are at the very beginning of that search for what those structures will look like. The Constitution is the basic institutional structure of the old society. Perhaps the best that the old society had to offer, but the old society nonetheless.

There is a reason why OWS raises no demands. It makes no demands on the structures of the old society other than to simply go away. But it is also the case that the structure of the new society, the structures of how we will govern ourselves as opposed to how we will be governed, have not yet themselves fully evolved. So, while we make no demands on the old society, neither are we yet prepared to replace it.

Our job right now is not to fiddle with the structures of the old society, about which we are ultimately powerless anyway. Our job is to organize. We need more GAs and more occupations. Once 20 or 30 million people are involved in GAs will be time enough to think about an appropriate next step.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20419) 2 years ago

I would particularly like to see Eric Cantor voted out of office. The guy challenging him is E. Wayne Powell. Here is his website:

http://powellforva.com/

Let's help get Eric Cantor out of office!!!

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes! It seems clear to me that we must use EVERY tool available to us to win this fight! I am suspicious of some of those who want us to disregard this avenue of change. I understand people's disgust with voting, given what it has thus far brought us, but dissatisfaction with the status-quo is so high right now that we would be crazy to not try to overthrow the satus-quo through the voting booth. With just a 9% approval rating Congress is vulnerable no matter how much money they throw into the elections. And if people are so stupid that they can be swayed by advertising to that degree than what hope do we really have? If we can't convert 91% disproval into a landslide election than what hope would we ever have of tranforming the system from without?

[-] 1 points by maybe777 (11) 2 years ago

The question is who will replace them all. The country is leaderless in spirit. Prophecy is at hand!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well that's constructive.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20419) 2 years ago

Yup. I just got an email from Bernie Sanders. Here's a link to his survey re: Citizens United:

http://sanders.senate.gov/polls/index.cfm?uid=aeb0a316-3284-4e95-aee6-7b16b2c85a5b

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks! Yes, part of the solution is so clear as to be obvious. There never was a time when Congress was so vulnerable to a populist landslide! And that's just the begining if we wake up and refuse to admit defeat!

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

We've got to vote Democratic. Sometimes a little party unity is a good thing, and now might be such a time. Politics is center-seeking and we mustn't be distracted with third party candidates as in 2000. Democracy is messy but the only way to go, even in a "republic" such as ours.

Thank you for this, everyone.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks for that comment. From what I'm seeing a lot of people here hate left-wing Democrats more than the 1%. If that's the case than we might as well just write this movement off as dysunctional, insane and unbelievably stupid. Fortunately, I think that is mostly the trolls and the Paulists who are still under the impression that this is their movement. It isn't and it never will be.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

The message would be more powerful if it stayed focussed on the numbers which detail the huge wealth disparity between the upper 1%, or even upper .1%, and the lower 99%. The 400 wealthiest Americans' average yearly income is 395 million dollars. Perhaps people just can't quite conceptualize the scope of this vast wealth, along with compounding over years and decades. Perhaps they need to realize the resemblance between this fact and prevailing conditions during feudal times, and in dictatorships around the world throughout history. If we could keep this message simple and to the point, perhaps people would understand that it's nothing personal, we have nothing against people enjoying their lives no matter their station, but that something has gotten way out of hand, to no one's benefit. It is almost like automatic payroll deposit has just taken over and gotten out of control. That's all.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks, you've made the message more powerful! I am in total agreement. When people point out that if you averaged the income of the top 1% and it comes to just hundreds of thousands of dollars, all that does is show how increadibly concentrated wealth is! Moreso than most could even imagine!

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Would you mind please clarifying your reply?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I mean that literally just a few thousand people control most of this countries wealth.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 2 years ago

Thought that's what you meant. Thanks for this.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're welcome. It seems that the truth has a strangely limited number of allies. I really abhor only one thing,and that is lies - either the lies that we are told, or the lies we tell ourselves.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Though Congress approval is so low, voters consistently have rather high approval of their individual congressman. They just don't like the way Congress as a whole functions. If Democrats put out lots of far-left candidates in elections next year, they will hand many more seats to the GOP than they would have otherwise. America (the 99%) is still very much a moderate nation.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure there is more untapped anger right now than there has ever been. The 99% have always been moderate, but there is nothing moderate about the stance of Congress. It is just a little to the right of Attila The Hun. I think they are vulnerable - all of them.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The Main point I want to make here is that there seems to be growing divide between those who feel we need to work without the system, and those who feel we need to work within the system. It seems clear to me that we should make no such distinction. There is no logical reason to believe there really IS such a distiction. It is a very important concept to ponder. What we want is change, what we must do is whatever we CAN do to force that change. Period.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

What you and Believers in the system and those Moveon people just can not get is that you are wasting your time. I understand the psychological need for Faith in the System. It is not easy to break through to reality when you have invested much of your psychic energy in your system of beliefs. But reality has left you behind. No matter if you got 50 really progressive people or 100 in the Congress (and that is all but impossible even if they declare themselves so since many are merely there for the money and opportunities....sigh, I know it is hard to believe), the nature of the system is such that it would not change a thing. The Corporations and the rest of the Plutocracy control the dynamics in Congress through their influence (money, promises, lobbyists, etc.). I see I have not broken down your conceptual apparatus, the prism through which you process info. You have to take a few hard knocks at least. Course, if you are comfortable and think America is just a terrifically healthy place (psychologically, emotionally, spiritually), then you will never change. The indices of pathological illness are evident to all but the blind: Depression, Unemployment, Drug Abuse, Familial and Social Disruption, Compulsive Gambling and Consuming, Flaming Materialism, Demented Hedonism, Ambition gone Gaga, Pervasive Narcissism, the Murder Rate, the Lack of Responsibility and Decency, the increasing Police State Control, the Attack on Freedoms, the Dominance of the Media, the Invasion of Privacy, the Military Industrial Complex which demands another war each Decade, the Corruption and Decadence of our Politicians and those who finance them on Wall Street, esp. the Banks and the Banksters, the White Collar Criminality, the absence of Punishment and Justice, The Unequal Treatment of the Wealthy and the Poor, the Unemployment, the Homelessness, the Hopelessness of so many, the ever-growing divide between the wealthy 20% and the remaining 80%, the latter who own only 7% of the wealth (see Dumhoff, professor of Sociology, statistics), the inability to solve or resolve issues or problems, the rampant printing of money to deal with Structural Financial problems, the debts of students, the 25% of homeowners who are underwater, the 45% of all homeowners either underwater, foreclosed on, in the process of being foreclosed on or several payments behind on their mortgages, the continual shipping of jobs overseas

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We simply don't seem to be communicating but rather talking past each other. First of all, when you describe me as a believer in the system you are wrong. I've been aware of the corruption of this system since 1967. What I am talking is expiediency. How do we actually accomplish the goal of transforming the system?

You, like so many, go on and on and on with you're critique when you are just preaching to the choir.

We know all that. The question is, what are we going to do about it, and how. You're arguments in this area seem less than convincing to me. In fact they sound like the same essential effort to turn away from reality that destroyed the movement in the 60's.

So, I agree with you about the problem. Please tell me clearly and concisely how you are suggesting we FIX it.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Dude: i have already given you one possible option: Build a Mass Movement by organizing chapters (like SDS, CISPES, NAACP, etc.), establish basic platform of Reforms (like Progressive Party did in 1912); organize demos, attract members, have meetings, educate, repeat; keep focused until you reach critical mass. We need to educate people about Failure of Political and Economic System: Call for following Basic Reforms: 1) Electoral including Voting Bill of Rights (e.g. public financing); 2) Legislative (elimination of Filibuster, etc.) 3) Tax (increase taxes on wealthy, corporations, sin & luxury taxes); 4) Financial Reform to stop corrupt practices with strict enforcement to include Banks and other Financial institutions; 5) Massive Jobs Program. Build the movement around this and at critical mass, consider Progressive Political Party or process of amending Constitution with reforms. Other Option would be to begin with reforming State by State (Oregon recently increased taxes on Corporations and wealthy), I believe I have stated this before for you. It does not sound like you are at all serious. Are you paying attention? By the way, what is YOUR SOLUTION. I have not heard you describe the fantasy by which you want to work within the corrupt and decadent system to change the world. Don't you think it is about time you described your Fantasy? Is this just a meaningless lark for you or do you actually have any intention of doing anything? You sound like a suspiciously comfortable Liberal living in a nice suburban house, the type of liberal Phil Ochs use to Mock. Have you ever done ANY political organizing? Or are you just an armchair pseudo-intellectual? Stop all the bullshitting and get your ass off the couch and fucking do something.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Firstly, I want you to know that I respect your opinion, and even agreed with it at one point, but there are some problems with it that we need to face - that we need to address head on, in order to not fall into the mistakes of the past.

You say we must bulid a mass movenment. That is not an end - it is a means to an end. If it were an end in itself, we could all go home now.

Secondly, you advocate education, as if that is the solution. Surely it is part of the ephermeral solution, but it ignores the fact that there are a great many people who will never change their minds. Furthermore, if education were the goal we could likewise go home now, because if this movement has accomplished one thing alone, it is to bring this issue to the forefront of consciousness - probably to the degree that it ever will be.

This has often been the problem with modern left-wing thinking; to confuse the process with the goal. Probably that is because we've seen so many defeats. The question is, why have we been defeated even though we have both truth and common sense on our side?

You said establish a basic platform of reforms. Well, we have done that, or are doing that and I'm sure that in the not too distant future we will have one. Can we then declair victory?

You see, there is no real substance here. That is the problem.

Then you go on to talk about all the changes we will then implement, begging the question of how we will aquire the power to implement them, as if the battle were already won.

The problem is there is no plan. Finally, I don't like being called "Dude". To me a dude is a rhine-stone cowboy, a poser, a pretender, a fake . . . Dude.

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I hope that means members are going to finally run for congress and not just hope that the next elected will fix the mistakes of the previous.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

If we can't get it together in time to run our own people than, I think we can't expect change from entering the politican field at this juncture, except to keep those few that are honest from being thrown out, and maybe help a few more get in.

Perhaps that's how it will play out, but if so we have missed a really great opportunity.

[-] 1 points by thankly1 (1) 2 years ago

We need to get rid of Grover Norquist first. He's the worst one of the lot.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think if everyone having this discussion just learned who to vote for and voted for them, we would have a good start of solving this problem right there. It has the added advantage of being comparatively easy.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, If they can win. I really wish this movement would challenge right-wing Democrates in the primaries. I think the most practical approach would be to try to turn the Democratic Party into a Democractic Party again; although, as I have said, If candidates will sign a pledge to hold to our gials, and have a proven record of social commitment, I wouldn't care what party they run under as long as they can win. (Okay, maybe not Republican because that would just make no sense at all.)

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

How to find out about Congressional deligation is?, and their voting records are?. Every Republican and Blue Dog Democrat, along with their voting records?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Thomas on the internet http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Right on!!! Need to hit from the inside AND the outside. It's not one or the other. It's gonna take both to get this corporate beast off our necks long enough to allow us to breathe and build a new society based on the best of thw original principals of our founding fathers. We don't have to start from scratch here. Let's play it smart and hit on all fronts.

The return of Glass Steagall , ending corporate personhood, enacting legislation to overturn Citizens United supreme court decision etc. would bring real change that would impact real people on the ground. Gypsy king is right. So are the people who say let's hit from the outside in a nonviolent way with direct action. It's time for this revolution to shift into second gear.... and then third.

This is all possible if we work to discover and highlight what we the 99% have in common. Everything else, all the fussing and infighting is just serving the interests of the 1% who want to divide us.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thank you for this very supportive comment, and for all the energy that you have put into this cause. Your powerful, positive-energy is exactly what this movement needs, and needs to sustain - in spite of all of the attempts to slime us with negative energy.

There are essentially two views of mankind in conflict here. One says that we are flawed beyond redemption, so "You might as well just get yours," before the inevitable, greed-induced Armageddon.

The other says that humanity has a value beyond dollars and cents; that we have a capacity for a greater, more visionary destiny. We must make our choice and stand behind it, unto death if necessary, because our mutual fates will be decided by where we chose to stand, or not to stand.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Yes. I'm right there with you. I would like to see the movement alchemist all this raw energy in America into positive action that brings real change. My list at http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/ was just a feeble attempt to assemble some of what seemed to be the best places to put energy at this particular moment. It obviously has flaws and is really just a start. I'm interested to read what you and others might write today to the "average American" as I attempted to in "Our Turn" http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn/ and what your version of tactics and demands might be. I think I understand your thinking and agree with it. What I'm suggesting is that we push this out of first gear discussion mode and start creating real docs that are digestible by the general public for discussion. I'm not saying we should create a doc and send it out somehow to middle America. I'm suggesting we create a doc that COULD POSSIBLY be something that could go out to middle America. It would be a draft that would be for internal discussion among like minded individuals.

I am in no way married to any of the items on my list. What I am interested in is that we start to find ways to alchemize all this raw energy. My theory is that there is good reason to think that middle America will get behind some specific actions if they're clear and compelling and promise real change.

Many worry that such specifics will "pigeon-hole" the movement. I just don't agree. By taking A stand, it in no way implies it is THE stand. I think what we need is a 2 to to five year series of actions that beat at the shores of corporatism and totalitarianism like waves of the sea, relentless. It's hundreds of actions from inside and outside that will add up to and result in a real revolution. The beauty is that some actions will be down some revolutionaries' alleys and others will appeal to different revolutionaries. What I want us to all get is that THAT'S OK! We can have diversity in this movement. We can take stands on various issues inside and outside the system without undercutting the movement. In fact, I think such an approach would energize the movement by allowing it to be accessible to middle America. We sell ourselves short when we fail to say "yes and"....We fail to channel raw energy. It can be alchemized.

I do not pretend to think I can do that. But I think we can drive each other, all of us in this discussion, to be our highest and best selves. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. And once we realize what we have in common, we can make decisions from a position of unified power rather than making demands from a position of divided weakness.

I thank you for all of your efforts and patience. I think there's a heart center here that is common among many of us even when we sometimes disagree. We need to focus more on that commonality in my view and lift each other up even if we're also honestly debating the best course of action.

Happy new year. I think this is about to shift into second gear and get some new traction. I'm totally amazed by what's been accomplished so far and give credit to all those out there in the streets and behind the scenes who put their hearts and souls into this movement. For all of their sacrifice, I am grateful.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, I agree with you that we are moving into second gear now, and that discussion need not be dissention. I am also very well aware that I am not always right. I don't think it is possible to always be right, but only to promote disgussion in order to try and collectively arrive at truth. Happy New Year to you too!!!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Excited to see some new energy flow into the movement now that people see pretty clearly that the republicans could very well unseat President Obama. I think it will begin to dawn on people even within the movement that this would make a big difference...and this could reenergize those people who were once active.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, I'm looking at polls right now that have Romney and Obama in a dead heat. If things look bad now (and they do) just Imagine what it would be like with a Republican in the white house, Republicans controling Congress and the Supreme Court, and the corporate elite hand in glove with it all? Now that is a fucking scary prospect!!!!

I know a lot of people are going to say Obama is no different than the Republicans, but that is just a lot of bull crap! It could very easily get a lot worse than it already is. We had better take back the Democratic Party, because that is the only expiedient way out of a situation that is looking grimmer, and more dangerous, every day that goes by!!!

If we don't at least hold the line in this election we are going to be in real, serious, trouble!!!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I strongly agree. And people need to understand this is just a step in the process, not a final goal. We need to hold the line on pur rights, poverty, health care, environmwnt etc while at th se time working on real solutions from inside and outside. These things matter for real human beings and we can work on two fronts at once.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We can and we must! There is no choice other than all-out-commitment! It's now or never! There will be a million voices saying we can't do it - that we can't do this, or we can't do that. We must stop listening to those voices and tell ourselves the things we can do, the things we can do today. The press has already written us off as a bunch of divissive losers, all the while trying to divide us. Who is there to prove them wrong but us? And neither should we, as a people, hide from the areas where we ourselves are to blame. We've been asleep. The miserable state of things is largely OUR responsibility. The only answer is to resolve to wake up, and not go to sleep again, not even if the problems are ever solved. We can no longer afford the luxury of a metaphorical sleep.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I completely agree. We've slumbered long enough. Time for humanity to rise and shine! So what are the 5 next steps in your view in a nutshell?

[-] 1 points by GordonGekko (8) 2 years ago

That crappy president needs to go too. Geez what a disapointment he turned out to be!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Not, in my opinion, if it means he will be replaced by a Republican. If we can't do better this time around, at least we shouldn't do worse.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

Contained in this thread is a most interesting discussion between BeatMan and GypsyKing. Very briefly their main points: BeatMan proposes that OWS should continue to educate and build a base for a third political party, and not waste time and resources with current politics. GypsyKing follows his original post with an emphasis on placing new progressives in [State] Legislatures and in Congress while Americans remain so discontent with those legislative bodies. Both present strong arguments for their positions that merit our attention. The only real conflict between the two seems to be with the notion of “wasting time”. Which one is correct? I can only offer to that most cogent discussion that it might help in building a movement to give people a focus and something to do. The focus and one actualizable task might first come from unseating as many incumbents as possible in the 2012 elections. Recognizing that most contests between Democrats and Republicans are decided by a small fraction of the total vote, OWS supporters could collectively put their weight on the side of the challenger in order to defeat any incumbent who has not proven his or her worth in defending the Constitution and the general interests of their constituencies. Resources required could be minimized by the use of the Internet and Social Media, and organization toward a third party would be improved by the exercise. This would not be a solution in itself, it would only demonstrate a process that would have to be repeated every two years until the legislatures got the message, or until the Constitution could be amended, whichever came first.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, my friend! You've got it!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

PERFECT! this is exactly what the tea party did and exactly how they imbedded our government in cement.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
vote for people who will help America,
not becasue they are D or R or neither
Elizabeth Warren Alan Grayson are excellent non-incumbents but who, in their right mind would vote against Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

God! The Republicans must laugh themselves sick to hear those of us who say change can't be created through the system, after they swept the last Congressional election, stonewalled progress in any direction, and now plan to run a campaign based on "Obama's Failure!"

[-] 0 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

For many years, we have been voting for people who we believed would help America. Fundamentally they were honest people. But we do have a systemic problem even with honest people in office. We need to break the power of money in politics. Perhaps the best defense against this inadvertent corruption is rotation and diversity of the office holders.

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

warren is a fascist, grayson is an idiot.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

labels are used by those who do not know how to use their minds

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

you're describing the democrat party loyalists.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

what do you call people who dont even know the name of their enemy-

Do you remember the name of the president who led us out of Hoover's great depression and World War II and the name of the political party he belonged to?
And the last president with a balanced budget - what party did he belong to?
And the last president who did not start any wars- what party did he belong to?

hint - the name of the party begins with the letter "D" and ends with "ic" You might want to google it happy new year!

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

as the depreesion years went on, al of FDR's alphabet soup programs did nothing, in fact the unemployment rate rose. What got the USA out of the depression was WWII. FDR's campiagn promise was to keep the USA out of foreign wars, it was all a rouse to get him re-elected. the ( planned) balanced budget was the result of a republican house led by gingrich. korea, vietnam, haiti , kosovo, used american troops. Democrat presidents. it's DEMOCRAT not "democratic" which is a process NOT a political party .

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If you want to learn - your type always knows so you dont need to learn -
google "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party"
here is the Democratic Party
http://www.democrats.org/about/party_organization

I dare you to do that -
come back here and tell the truth with your advanced research If you are smart enough to find the "Democrat Party" site- maybe you will be smart enough to post their web address here
OR are you afraid of the truth?

And the last president who did not start any wars- what party did he belong to? And what was his name? And the last president who committed treason and forgot about it?
And the last president who resigned? And the last vice-president who resigned?

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the press has perpetrated the use of "democratic " in place of democrat. Just because they use it , it doesn't make it so. The deficit under george bush was in the billions, under 0bama ,...........double digit TRIILIONS and growing. unemployment under bush hovered around 5% under 0bama,......9%,......real number larger

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and the web site you stuiously looked for and found for the "democrat party" is where?
or did the "press has perpitrated" a fraud and evaporated the site for YOUR "democrat party"
weak minds - and losing candidates - do blame the press

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the press,..............abcnbccbsmsnbccnn ,....all shills for the dems. by using the AJECTIVE "democratic" it's an attempt to portray the dems as a caring group, after all they're "democratic"

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and the web site you stuiously looked for and found for the "democrat party" is where? or did the "press has perpitrated" a fraud and evaporated the site for YOUR "democrat party" weak minds - and losing candidates - do blame the press
last chance to show your real intelligence!

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

Last chance for you to edit your post . The English as a second language essay competititon starts tomorrow. The MSM is biased. If you don't know that you're dumber than dirt.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I knew you could do it!

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

You are one of the winners of the Darwin Award. look it up

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Here is a list of 184 current members of Congress who, in 1999, voted to repeal Glass-Steagall. They are the best candidates for a concerted effort by OWS counter-candidates to target.

The Congress That Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

This comment by Aahpat is a most constructive approach.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

You can gain supporters from this event.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-new-year-eve-and-day-2012/

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

"Everyone in OWS needs to know who theire Congressional deligation is, and what their voting records are"

"Your words" say Vote !

And spell check needed !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, my words do say Vote, if we can create or re-elect a candidate that supports our agenda, and I don't use spell check

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

You're correct !

No spell check needed for common sense !!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I think my posts are legable enough to be clearly understood, thanks.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

Good night the other half of my mind / heart !

'Till mornin' calls another soldier to the cause !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Likewise.

[-] 1 points by dcosts (69) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Populist Economic Party FEC filing in place...dcosts.com, Florida, District 10

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

As long as candidates will sign a pledge to vote for our agenda, have a history of backing our causes, and can win, I don't care if we run them as Yellow Crested Buntings.

[-] 1 points by dcosts (69) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Whats a Bunting?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

A kind of bird.

[-] 1 points by dcosts (69) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Ah well...A bird, bird, bird, bird is a word. dcosts.com

[-] -1 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 2 years ago

The issue is there is no agenda other than a set of platitudes.

[-] 1 points by 420 (40) 2 years ago

There needs to be laws in place so my kids and grandchildren wont have to go through this shit!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We take Congress, we make the laws. Money has had their way with congress for one reason, lets face it, apathy. Most Americans have been too busy watching I love Lucy re-runs to vote. That's why if we put up our own candidates and everyone of us actually vote we can still change the system. "The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are bondsmen."

If that doesn't work, we don't give up. But to simply run away from a situation so ripe for our exploitation seems clear lunacy to me, at least if actual reform is what we want, and we aren't on some other, personal, ego agenda. (I'm not aiming that at you or anyone else, specifically, but let's not get so carried away with our own rehtoric that we lose sight of the actual goal.)

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Are you actually serious? You believe that electing new congressmen and senators is going to make a difference. Dude, where have you been? Are you so ignorant, naive and idealistic that you actually believe that if your elect certain officials, that things will change? You obviously have no clue how the system works. Congress is corrupted by money. The legislature is controlled by arcane and pathetic rules so that nothing serious can be accomplished. The electoral system is a joke. Congresspeople and senators are bought and sold on the corporate marketplace. We will never make ANY progress until we build a mass movement that challenges the very authority of those in power: the Plutocracy. I suggest you begin by depositing a brick through a bank window. Grow the fuck up.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

"Until we build a mass movement that challenges the very authority of those in power: The Plutocracy . . ."

And replace that system with what?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Look, most of you folks on this site are young, idealistic, naive, utopian, and, to be honest, just not very well informed. The Plutocracy, those that control the mechanisms of our system, don't give a shit about elections and the Congress. They own them. They control them. Most of those elected assholes are millionaires and very rich. They engage in Insider Trading, they let lobbyists write bills (hard to believe, but true), they hang and party with the very wealthy, they are out of touch with most America but act like they care. The system is totally corrupt, decadent, and dysfunctional. Read Who Rules America. Read Ralph Nader. Read Chomsky. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex. The Powers That Be love it that you young, indoctrinated people STILL believe in this pathetic system and believe it is a Republic and a democracy. It is a a ruse and a diversion so that you will not look behind the curtain. They have you by the balls and until you wake up, you will never understand how the system works. You can't understand it until you plumb deep, read, study, talk to your elders. I have heard and talked with ex CIA operatives who confirm how corrupt and scary the system is. If you want change, you can no longer simply work within the system without major reforms. Do the hard work of enlightening yourself.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

We know all of that, or at least some of us do, but you left out one rather essential question - how do we change it?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

I've outlined it on this site before. Look, here is the situation, briefly as the idiots who manage this site have space limitations. First, work to build a Mass Reform Movement, New American Reform Movement or something like that. Goal is 1000 chapters with dues paying members to raise some funding. Education is key. Develop appropriate materials about the Plutocracy which runs the country. Most of the research and facts are already there. Every body needs to be able to articulate the problems of the system, its corrupt practices, dysfunctionality, and decadence. There is literally tons of info out there on all this. 1% of the population owns 43% of wealth. 20% owns 93%. Platform is Five REFORMS: 1) Electoral; 2) Financial; 3) Legislative; 4) Tax; 5) Public Works Program. The theme is Fairness. Develop fundraisers and public protests. Work to build Mass Movement of 1 million, then 5 million, then 10 million. Consider boycott of federal elections to make our point and articulate Electoral Bill of Rights (paper trail, public financing, voting on Sundays, etc). Boycott Banks, Sit Down Protests at the Capitol, Hunger protests everywhere, Etc. etc. When the time and conditions are ripe and we are well organized, then we consider mass disruption throughout the society with a List of our Demands. Consideration at this point of forming Third party. Check out Progressive Bull Moose Party of 1912 and 1916 and Perot's Reform Party of 1992. They were significant. The point is that we need a structure, organization, and an agenda and we need to get going soon. It will take time.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It seems to me that expecting millions of people to act independently to form such a coordinated and cohesive structure (people who's views of what must be done to affect change are at great varriance), without leaders or any effective leadership structure already in place, is beyond the conception of what is possible. How do you propose to bring this all together?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

First of all, it is not me who would do it. We begin with a core cadre of people who set up the model, say in NYC. Remember, we already have millions of people interested and already many of these people are meeting and already making plans or at the very least decisions. The INTEREST and MOTIVATION are already there. I would bet you that if this started, it would spread like wildfire. There is nothing more attractive and inspiring to others than a CAUSE that promotes Fairness and Justice. The details of a real long-term Platform can be worked out through meeting at local level, sending delegates to regional conferences, and finally at a National Convention. This is long-term. I have been travelling and seen many groups in Oregon and California and I am sure you are aware of this. Believe me, I know what I am talking about. I protested with groups working to stop the War in Vietnam in the 1970s; Solidarity Groups (CISPES & others) to fight against US Intervention in Central America in the 1980s; in the Green Alliance in Northern Calif which led tot he Calif. Green Party. I have organized many events, spoke, etc. I have cred as they same. I have followed social and political movements for forty years. I have been waiting for this day for many years. The anger and motivation exists. It just needs to be channeled. If you build an organization with structure, using the internet which we did not have in our day, you could build a Mass Movement. If anyone is serious, the timing is here and the effort should be made. SDS did it in the Sixties. CISPES had chapters all across the country in the 1980s. Many other organizations have build a national identity. This is not pie in the sky stuff. But, it takes people willing to donate time, energy, money. I do not know if young people are that committed as they have been shaped by a consumer society. Many of the people I see out there are older.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I agree. It's not either / or. It's both. Beat Man. I'm with you. Gypsy King. I'm with you. You're both right and as soon as critical mass of people line up behind BOTH of your points of view and realize that these tandem efforts together will bring the revolution we've all been fighting for, it will happen.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I both undersand you aims and sypathize with them. My understanding is that deligates are planing to meet next summer in Philidelphia to hammer-out a set of final demands. That is good.

I agree that this movement has more power than any I have seen; even that of the sixties. It is because of that, that I think we need not ask the question, as we were forced to in the sixties, of whether this movement should work outside, or inside, of "the system."

Thus, my question is, why marginalize this movement by not engaging in the established political sphere? If the Constitution had been abborgated, instead of corrupted, than there would be no other choice, but that is not the case. I feel that this movement would double in power if we work both sides of the street, and I think doing both is possible. given our numbers. It also avoids the potential trap of eventually forming something akin to a parallell government, which might at some point be labelled sedition, and used as an excuse for a crackdown. So while I think it is a good idea to go forward with the NGA's plans for an alternate convention, I think we need to also create a presence in the established political sphere. There are many good reasons for this view that mostly evolve around the prevention of being marginalized and thereofore being brutally suppressed, if at some point those in power fell that was what's necessary to destroy the threat this movement poses.

As bad as is the police repression we have seen, it is clearly possible for them to exert a lot more force. Working to elect catidates for the Legislatures and Congress would give this movement much insurance against a martial law crackdown. I think that alone reccommends this path higly, as does the huge voter dissatisfaction that could give us a real presence in both State Houses and Congress within the coming year. With such popular support as we have, I see no need to stay "underground," rather the opposite. Thanks for your valued input. My belief is that we can and should give them the full-court-press.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I agree. It's not either / or. It's both. Beat Man. I'm with you. Gypsy King. I'm with you. You're both right and as soon as critical mass of people line up behind BOTH of your points of view and realize that these tandem efforts together will bring the revolution we've all been fighting for, it will happen.

[-] 0 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

You are actually going to work to elect whom? You have one year left. In nearly all congressional districts, the odds are electing incumbents. It is expected in the Senate that the Republicans will pick up possibly a majority of seats. You do realize that even if you elected ten progressives (which is virtually impossible) on the Congress, that they would have virtually no impact. Build the Movement first, the go to a Third Party movement. You would be wasting time, energy, and money working for progressive Congressional candidates who have almost no chance. Have you actually thought any of this out. It does not sound like it.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You are saying that we can't turn a 9% approval rating of Congress into the defeat of any incumbents? If so, who is to blame?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Look, I don't have the time nor energy nor desire to persuade someone who probably has little or no background in this stuff. Polls which show low approval of Congress are meaningless to most Americans who then go out and end up supporting their incumbent representative or Senator. Saying you don't approve of Congress DOES NOT mean that you want to change your representative. This is a logical fallacy. Besides, most Americans are so stupid, that they say one thing and do the exact opposite. You must be very young or very ignorant and naive or perhaps all three. Come back in one year, and tell me what you have learned. I left this site once and it looks like I will have to do it again. People here just have no clue. Get out and try organizing something and then come back and see what you have learned. You can't participate in a system which is totally fucked up and our system is.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

How is it then that the "tea-party" managed to do just that it the very last election cycle? Are you saying we should not vote? What, exactly are you advocating in regard to the existing democratic process. I really just don't understand? That we should step aside, or what?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

I am not sure you are concentrating on what I write. But perhaps you missed something. I have space limitations here, so i can not be as thorough as I would prefer, so keep that in mind. First, the electoral process in our country is dysfunctional, perverted and corrupt. If you don't agree, than I would need much longer space to convince you. The electoral College is a joke, makes not sense, and is actually anti-democratic. The system works to favor those with money, specifically the wealthy and corporate elements. This has been validated and attested to my many studies and reports. Nader classically has pointed this out for years. Moreover, the wealthy in the country, the Plutocracy control the reins of power. Elections are a tawdry device to seduce people into believing they have power. The political process itself is rife with corrupting devices and mechanisms which undermine the process of popular will to effective change. There are many. The filibuster and other legislative rules prevent majority rule. The bicameral legislative process of approving bills makes the process of law making ridiculously complex (and more subject to corrupting influences, subtle and blatant). Committee chairmen can stymie votes. Bills can be effectively destroyed with 'riders' added to them. The whole process has become increasingly corrupted over time. The electoral process requires a Bill of Rights for voting which would provide 10-12 reforms to make elections Fair (voting on Sundays, paper trail, public financing, etc.). I advocate a boycott of the federal ballot, and a campaign to get a Voters Bill of Rights. I suggest building a Mass Movement around four or five reforms: Electoral & Legislative (to promote real democracy) and Tax & Financial to stop the plutocractic (corporate) abuse and domination of power. The fifth would revolve around a public jobs program. Others might involve Health Care, etc. We would build a REAL reform movement with chapters throughout the country and work to educate the public through demonstrations, a website, literature, attracting memberships, outreach, etc. At some point, we would evolve into a real political force and then consider a Third Party. Check out the Progressive Party of 1912 as a classic model of a Reformist Party that made a real difference. Many of their reforms were eventually adopted by the Political Establishment as Amendments or laws. This is a template for a methodology. We can work to involve Nader, Michael Moore, and many others in the progressive liberal establishment. We would proceed to build a nationwide organization over a few years and become a dynamic force for change. We would be logical, reasonable, and our banner would be FAIRNESS & JUSTICE or somesuch slogan. The timing is good as more and more people are becoming disenfranchised. Suffering +Ideas + Leaderships & Organization = Reform or Revolution. This is the historic formula for change. Trying to change working within the established system will not work until the system itself is significantly modified. The Powers That Be now have total control of the system. Elections and voting are dangerous in the long run (at the federal level at least) as they create the illusion of that people have the means to effect change. With the media controlled by corporations, the balance of power is totally one-sided. There is window for change, reform, revolution when enough people are pissed off and there is a program, some direction and a plan. Otherwise, you are just spinning wheels and putting energy into a system which will ultimately pervert that new energy. E.G. congressmen are easily corrupted. Those that aren't, leave the system.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Undoubtedly much of what you say here is true, but we actually have some uncorrupted people in congress, and although the accepted wisdom is that you can't unseat incumbents, I say you sure can't if you don't try!!!

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

What you and Believers in the system and those Moveon people just can not get is that you are wasting your time. I understand the psychological need for Faith in the System. It is not easy to break through to reality when you have invested much of your psychic energy in your system of beliefs. But reality has left you behind. No matter if you got 50 really progressive people or 100 in the Congress (and that is all but impossible even if they declare themselves so since many are merely there for the money and opportunities....sigh, I know it is hard to believe), the nature of the system is such that it would not change a thing. The Corporations and the rest of the Plutocracy control the dynamics in Congress through their influence (money, promises, lobbyists, etc.). I see I have not broken down your conceptual apparatus, the prism through which you process info. You have to take a few hard knocks at least. Course, if you are comfortable and think America is just a terrifically healthy place (psychologically, emotionally, spiritually), then you will never change. The indices of pathological illness are evident to all but the blind: Depression, Unemployment, Drug Abuse, Familial and Social Disruption, Compulsive Gambling and Consuming, Flaming Materialism, Demented Hedonism, Ambition gone Gaga, Pervasive Narcissism, the Murder Rate, the Lack of Responsibility and Decency, the increasing Police State Control, the Attack on Freedoms, the Dominance of the Media, the Invasion of Privacy, the Military Industrial Complex which demands another war each Decade, the Corruption and Decadence of our Politicians and those who finance them on Wall Street, esp. the Banks and the Banksters, the White Collar Criminality, the absence of Punishment and Justice, The Unequal Treatment of the Wealthy and the Poor, the Unemployment, the Homelessness, the Hopelessness of so many, the ever-growing divide between the wealthy 20% and the remaining 80%, the latter who own only 7% of the wealth (see Dumhoff, professor of Sociology, statistics), the inability to solve or resolve issues or problems, the rampant printing of money to deal with Structural Financial problems, the debts of students, the 25% of homeowners who are underwater, the 45% of all homeowners either underwater, foreclosed on, in the process of being foreclosed on or several payments behind on their mortgages, the continual shipping of jobs overseas as well as capital, the absolute corporate control of media and information, the attack on whistle blowers, critics, radicals, and those who speak the truth, the massive ignorance and stupidity of the American people who have sold their souls to their Corporate Masters. Yes, i understand the need to have Hope and Faith in a rapidly dying, decrepit, deceitful system. Indoctrination, Entertainment, Drugs and an Educational system which stymies critical thinking, inculcates patriotism to infuse the masses with hypnotic patriotic singing, pledges, and parades so that al that is left is the horrifying spectacle of 300 million zombies who go along with the 1% because they just do not get it. See, they can't get it. Because if they actually did GET IT, they would fucking rebel and become revolutionaries and DEMAND a new healthy respectful world not built on Consumer Capitalism which is spreading its demonic tentacles throughout the world, sucking the elan vital from all peoples and suffocating the last vestiges of our Divine being, our spirituality, our kindness, our caring, our love.....all for the sake of GREED.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I totally agree with you BeatMan. This system is way too corrupt to be fixed from within.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

Oh Yeah ! , That worked for the past 235 years !

Let's just vote again !

Sounds like gambling to me !

"Annie ! Get yer' Gun and let's walk sum dem der so called reps out thu door !"

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I didn't say, "just vote." I don't know why people see it as vote, or protest - vote, or occupy - vote or tax revolt - vote or reoccupy housing, etc., etc. I don't see it that way, That is a false dichotomy, and I see it as a false dichotomy that is defeatist.

[-] 2 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Voting will not change a fucking thing. Are you kidding me. It is like playing poker with players who hold extra aces. The system is rigged, controlled by the wealthy who bribe, threaten, cajole, and seduce our elected officials. You can not change a corrupt and dysfunctional system by playing by its rules. You either have to change the RULES or challenge the powers by revolutionary acts (peaceful if possible). As long as you think and believe that elections can change things, you are lost and wasting your time. The system will allow for tiny changes or more significant ones only when threatened. Read your America history, not the bullshit you learned in school and they censored but REAl American history. The Powers That Be will never relent until they face the threat of violence, sad thought that might be. They have no intention of letting you of the 99% get your way. They hope you will stay within the parameters of the system, the electoral one, because they control it. Do you homework. Read. Study, Talk to people who know. Nader did not give up on the system just because he was bored. He was a heroic figure who finally realize the system was so corrupt that you can no longer work within it. He himself was banned from attending a Presidential debate because the Democrats feared him. That is what they do in Communist countries. You need to wake up, my friend.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Wrong. You made a crucial mistake here Beatman. Power responds to power. That is true. But you didn't say it that way. You suggested that power only responds to violence. That's totally wrong. Power responds to power. And nonviolent direct action is power. They know what to do with violence. That's what they're praying for in the board rooms and country clubs. That would be a drw come true for them. They don't know what to do with nonviolent direct action though because they look bad no matte how they react. I agree with a lot of what you say (I spent some one on one time with Abbie Hoffman by the way) but I think you run off the rails when you start thinking that power only responds to violence.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

I get so tired of people not digesting what I write and instead interposing their own interpretation and then responding to that interpretation, that it becomes almost impossible to have a dialogue. I do not talk about violence at all although it certainly is an option under the right conditions. I am talking about working outside the political system and building a movement like the antiwar movement against the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. This is not difficult to understand. It is really bizarre on this site that people who one assume have some intelligence constantly pervert what someone says. Very strange.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I hear you.

And I think you stick to that in most of what your write. However, you said exactly these words and this is what I personally disagreed with: "The Powers That Be will never relent until they face the threat of violence, sad thought that might be.". That's a pretty definitive statement you made and I just hate to see things like that take away from all the great points you're making.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

You are naive. Violence is always the last resort. The powers that be respect it. When riots broke out in the ghettos and there was the threat more violence......the Establishment took notice. So too during the Vietnam War protests. Workers fought against thugs, police, detectives and the national guard for basic rights or to gain basic rights. A Civil War was fought in part over Slavery. The Revolutionary War was fought to fight oppression. Need I go on??? The powers that be need to face the threat of violence, yes, otherwise they will NEVER take people seriously. I am not necessarily advocating it but just stating a fact. You may simply be a really comfortable white person who has never experienced the repression of authority, of the police, of the establishment. When you do, you will understand. At some point, when people have their homes taken away, see their families torn apart and have no options for jobs, the last resort is to assert their right to food and security and sometimes that requires breaking the law. The Banksters have gotten away with massive crimes and the politicians and the establishment have let them. So, yes, I advocate depositing a brick through their windows, gumming up their automated tellers and other tactics. But, primarily, I was talking about organizing a Mass Movement throughout the country to educate, protest and build a structure of opposition. You can not change this system through working through the electoral process. It is impossible. Talk to Ralph Nader who has tried for some forty years. You have no fucking idea what and who you are dealing with. The politicians are merely the pawns of those who really wield power. If you think the politicians control things, you are really uninformed.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Spoken like a true Republican in hiding! Remember FDR? He wasn't a figment of our imagination, and the rich had just the stranglehold on government in 1930 as they do now.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

If we slip into economic collapse, there is a chance but we aren't there yet. The underclass was far more radicalized with communists, socialists, wobblies, and others (do you know your history?). Nothing when compared to today. The workers were struggling, massive numbers of unemployed with no social security, food stamps, health care, etc. No comparison to today. Factor in the indoctrination of todays citizens and people like you who think if you elect somebody, things will really change, and you can see there is no hope. Best to build a mass movement, a reform agenda, begin boycotting, urge strikes, non-violent protests, etc. That would be far better than working within the system which is so corrupt and dysfunctional that any decent person elected will have no impact. Don't get locked into your conclusions and thinking. Be open and do your homework. No doubt you are well intentioned, but it sounds like you do not know how the system works. Hint: it don't work like your history teachers taught you in high school. If you aren't open to what I am arguing or willing to investigate, you will end up wasting your time and energy on meaningless bullshit traditional politics. Your choice. Believe me. I know what I am talking about as someone who has been involved and been around for sixty years. Why do you think Nader gave up?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

As I have said before, I don't think these options are, or should be, mutually exclusive. Congress has the power to enact laws, either in our favor or against us. If we ignore that fact we are just going to make demonstrations and boycotts actions with less than satisfactory results unless we can get an actual majority of Americans to participate. That I think is optimistic.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Go ahead, try it. You need to learn from your direct experience. The electoral option is really closed off to promoting reform. The impetus has to come from the outside. If you know your history, you would realize that every major reform came through citizen movements outside the political system, starting with protests, marches, etc. This is what puts pressure on the Power Structure. IF you work within the system, the will manipulate, modify, corrupt, promise and, in the end, you will end up with nothing or a bastadrized version of what you really wanted. The Abolition Movement, the Workers Movement, the Women's Movement, the Civil RIghts Movement all worked largely outside the political structure until they gained significant traction and momentum and the politicians felt the pressure. Check out the Progressive Party of 1912 and read up on its history. Building a Third Party is another way but it is challenging and requires lots of support. It is doable but I suggest building a Movement as a precursor.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree with you in essence, but not if we put forward our own candidates. The tea party, whatever their confusion over the real issues and what needs to be done, had shown that in the very last election cycle.

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Again, I say build the Movement first, then work for a Third Party in 2014 or 2016. You are wasting time, energy and money in any attempt to change things through the Congress under the present conditions.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Under surrent circumstances there is no whether any of us will be here in 2014, or 2016, much less whether this movement will still be here. We must do BOTH. Do you know what time it is?

[-] 1 points by BeatMan (16) 2 years ago

Sorry, you apparently live in a dream world of blather and endless intellectual discussion. THere is no organized movement to do much of anything before the next congressional elections and I doubt there will be anything close to what the Tea Party did. And, even if there were, it would not have much, if any impact. I suspect most of the people on this site who contribute verbosity here will not, in the end, contribute much and become activists. Activism requires a real commitment of, say 20 hours per month or much more. I seriously doubt that 1% of the people here will make that commitment. Just a bunch of bullshitters.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 2 years ago

"Everyone in OWS needs to know who theire Congressional deligation is, and what their voting records are"

"Your words" say Vote !

And spell check needed !

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're right, my words say Vote! And I don't use spell check.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Go to the Project Vote Smart web site and you can get that information, but you are wasting your time. Other than guns, abortion, and gays in the military, it does not matter who you vote for.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/

Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

I just got an idea...

What if we compile all the best documentaries (related to OWS causes) and create a single DVD file to go viral on P2P networks??

That way, anybody can burn their own copies and spread it to people they know..

I figure it's necessary, because baby boomers are never going to find these documentaries on the web and Inside Job isn't even available on Redbox or any of those companies.

Just a thought.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you can make it work go for it.

Educate anyway you know how.

Promote as best you can.

Getting good content from this site spread out into the internet at large is what I am currently working on.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Inside Job is available at libraries.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Yeah, but people with library cards are already on our side..

I was thinking this would be a way of spreading word to others.

I find it strange, though, that libraries have it and redbox doesn't.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Good idea

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

If I could build up the nerve, I would like to take Inside Job and The Warning (another great doc.) and show them in senior centers, and perhaps with someone else do a presentation.

I really do feel that we can reach seniors with this movement as there is a lot of pain there from losing their chance for a comfortable retirement to social security and medicare being in jeopardy.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

That's actually a really good idea.

The elderly are the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the country..

Also, they tend to be less informed. When I asked my grandparents who was their favorite president, they said Reagan. When I asked them what they think about on the current economic issues, it was perfectly aligned with OWS. They didn't know whether Reagan was for or against privatization. They just believed that he was pro-life, anti-soviet union and didn't like black people and so, to them, he was the best.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out as soon as I have time.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is worth the time.

I am pushing for this to go viral.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 2 years ago

I agree. I think that we need to develop a real good set of questions.

  1. What is your interpretation of "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"?
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Damned right, as puff6962 has pointed out, I think correctly, "First you get the power, then you get the change".

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 2 years ago

how about a recall

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yeah, but who will replace them? We better make sure that they're better and not worse/

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 2 years ago

i'd vote for you, puff, etc who I don't even know, except through this online forum. hopefully, whoever would fill in would be less-bought off than the current incumbant, and would therefore, be more readily defeated come the next election.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree that we can't win the presidency in the next election, but we can win Congress and the State Legislatures if we really want to. Then we can put forth our agenda from a position of stregnth.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 2 years ago

yes...congress has power to create law at their best or (at least to block/defund) so it is the power of the purse. good thing the people still have a "say" at the ballot box: if they rise up in mass

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Yes, and it can't just be the ballot box, we must rise up in mass to enforce our vote, and force them to make the changes we demand. I am not advocating the ballot box as the only solution, but with it we can compell the enforcers of law to act in accordance with our aims. Law is what must be reinstated. In case we forget, no one is enforcing the law for anyone but the 1%.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21785) 2 years ago

I got question #2. What is your interpretation of the General Welfare Clause?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Exactly!

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

Why are earth is there no vote of confidence option given? Especially, considering that Congress's approval rating is only 9%.

Why they still have jobs is beyond me. The American people need to speak up and throw the bums out and replace them with people of integrity. Oh, how refreshing that would be.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

You're darn right It would be refreshing. The thing is, we can do just exactly that, but it is up to us!

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 2 years ago

You said it--it is up to us.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by doughboy (0) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

My Gypsy friend please consider this....in the spirit of Federalsim if all city councils across the country were to have a single msg delivered at the same time would that not pre-empt any collusion on the local levels of our representative process....by that I mean it is easy for a candidate to appeal to populist rhetoric.....OWS could maintain momentum thru the winter months by exercising the open discussion period of all council meetings....you gotta love Roberts Rules Of Order....Peace Out

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

On second thought, this might be a very good idea. Please tell me, and forgive me for my ignorance, what is an msg?

[-] 0 points by doughboy (0) from Staten Island, NY 2 years ago

My Gypsy friend please consider this....in the spirit of Federalsim if all city councils across the country were to have a single msg delivered at the same time would that not pre-empt any collusion on the local levels of our representative process....by that I mean it is easy for a candidate to appeal to populist rhetoric.....OWS could maintain momentum thru the winter months by exercising the open discussion period of all council meetings....you gotta love Roberts Rules Of Order....Peace Out

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Wow, did any of this actually make any sense . . . Humm?

[-] 0 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

GypsyKing is right about the present opportunity. Congress will take note if even only a few incumbents are removed by an unexpected appearance of angry voters. (We are in this fix because for too long we bought the nonsense fed to us by our politicians. It is not hard to see why politicians take us for granted.) If in 2012 we do not have good choices to replace those currently in office, at least we should identify and support the next most likely candidate to get elected, whether that person be Democrat, or Republican, or Independent. Just remember to remove that person as well on the next cycle. More later ... I'm called now to a game of Monopoly with my children!

[-] 1 points by shooz (26715) 2 years ago

Be very careful with this.

This thinking brought us the current crop of teabaggers.

I don't know about you, but I don't care for how that turned out.

The waters must be tested, to see which politicians will back enough of the demands, to help us move forwards.

Those who back none of it, must be focused on for unelection.

We all want this to happen over night, but these things take time and focus.

[-] 0 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

I expect that we agree that one of the major problems is the influence of money in politics. This influence is possible because of several mechanisms that are outlined in Lessig's excellent book "Republic Lost ...". One of his key points is that good people can collectively do bad things under this influence. I am skeptical that we could identify and elect anybody who is both good enough and abnormal enough not to be influenced by money and career. Think back to Maximilian Robespierre and the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. Historians credit Robespierre with being a good and principled man, but look what resulted! There are too many examples in history for why we should not depend upon good men and good women, and the philosophy that they profess. We must rather have in place a process defined by rules of law, that restrain the liberties of all people, principled and unprincipled. Our Constitution did a pretty good job at this, but we now may need to improve that document to meet the changing circumstances. A short-term action that might start this process would be to remove enough incumbents to weaken the present power of money. Shooz wisely cautions us to think very carefully about what we do. Simply cycling through Congress a grab-bag of one-termers may not get much of importance done, but it could break the control of big money just long enough for us to amend the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Look, Republicans VOTE. The rest of us are too disillusioned to bother. Does that strike a chord with anyone? The fate of the world is at stake! If you are willing to go out and face the cops then for Christ's sake go to the voting booth! Work within and without the system - do whatever you can to change this situation, do not be fooled into a false choice of either/or! We need to do EVERYTHING we can to save humanity!

[-] 0 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Your either dreaming or on a hallucinogenic drug. You really think there's a perfect little replacement candidate for each member of congress just waiting to fulfill the 99%'s needs and desires. No, they are all millionaires, playing in a corrupted system, with a century and a half of laws written to keep them in power for as long as possible; make them amuned from the law as thoroughly as possible, and make them as rich as possible. It's the top of the food chain baby and we ain't getting in without a fight!

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 2 years ago

I agree with you and have always thought this was a perfect opportunity to take congressional seats and begin to make a difference. Too many want to tear down everything and start over. That's a dream that drives away support.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

It is, we just need to realize it and act. Those who say it's impossible are not looking at America's history in it's entirety. But running candidates alone is not enough, we need to keep the pressure on in creative ways that young people are good at seeing, whereas those of us who are older often cannot.

[-] 0 points by ohmygoodness (158) 2 years ago

Members of Congress' Net Worth Rose 25 Percent Despite Economy

"....Financial reports from congressional members have recently revealed that members of Congress are more similar to the wealthy one percent than they are to the 99 percent that the Occupy Wall Street movement represents.

National Public Radio reported back in November that Congress’ net-worth had risen 25 percent over the past two years despite the recession of 2008. Compared that to the 8 percent drop the average American’s net worth saw over the past 6 years, according to ABC News, and it is easy to see why average citizens are outraged over the cultural gap between them and the politicians they elect to represent their communities.

The New York Times reports that the median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000 compared to the $100,000 for the general population.

Nearly half the members of Congress are millionaires. In contrast, only five percent of the general population is considered to be part of the millionaires club....."

in addition to a new pay rise for Congress !!!

wow...taking over Congress won't be easy but must be done for the people by the people and Congress should be of the people, simple democracy, Dear Watson..

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Too many people have simply not voted in the past. This must change. We need to not only vote but put up candidates for election. Also, I think we must keep up the pressure in the streets. We must use every non-violent option to force change.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

You are so right

[-] 0 points by FreedomIn2012 (-36) from Hempstead, NY 2 years ago

so are we looking for socialists to go to congress? That's helpful!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Where did you come up with that word Socialist. Is anybody who stands against the oppression of concentrated wealth a Socialist, or is that just one of the scare words we have been propogandized to fear. Anyone who stands against corporate oppression is automatically a "Socialist." Well, if you believe that than why are you posting on this forum?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

labels ( like socialist ) are used by those whose minds are unable to think.
dont treat them harshly,
they cant help it.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

change their compensation packages and insider trading privileges too!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I think we need to run new candidates that sign a pledge to uphold our goals, and hold them accountable

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

completely agree withi you on that!

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Yes! There will never be a better opportunity to elect a bunch of wild eyed commies!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

It's too early to get political. We have to shake the foundation of this corrupt system first otherwise all we get are the same old unkept promises. For me, at this point politicians are irrelevant.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

There is part of me that agrees with you, but time is of the essence. I wish we could wait, and develop this movement further before entering the political arena, but we are there whether we like it or not and if we fail to make dramatic changes in this political cycle, there is no telling what will happen in the intervening years. Those are my thoughts anyway.

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I just don't see this as being a short term project. Our success can only be achieved when we get a groundswell of support from people that understand how corrupt the system really is. By getting political too soon. I think we just belittle our movement, and the pundits will say,"see they are a bunch of socialists." We should definitely remain apolitical and all politicians who are part of this corrupt system should feel our rage!

We have to get in the position where we can demand change, not ask for it. That will happen only when we get a groundswell of support from people who finally understand what a sewer our political and financial systems have turned into, and how it has adversely affected us all in one way or another.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

The question is whether we can get people, that is a majority of people, to get involved and get in the streets. My expierence with American disunity makes me think that we must work both ends of the spectrum. Just my personal opinion.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

We will get more people of we take a stand and get specific and get political. It's all about using momentum and energy and we have not used it wisely. This energy and angst could be channeled into a lot of productive action that would bring real change and real benefit to real people on the ground. That's nothing to laugh off in some theoretical discussion.

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

We should work on getting the our message out more so that when people hear about protests and arrests they understand what is pissing us off, and why we are doing this. Since we can't depend on the corporate owned media who seem to still pretend that they don't know what this about or even to to tell the truth, we have to do it ourselves by engaging as many people as we can by social media, letters to the editor, etc. The winter is an excellent time to do it too.

I have been working with several other people to set up a web site to reach out to the more conservative crowd using reason, logic, and things that they can relate to. There is a lot of pain out there-lost savings, severely reduced 401k's, social security and medicare in jeopardy (all while we feed the military industrial complex) etc. For the most part, these people are our parents and grandparents. We have to bring them into the fold by showing that we care about them.

Aproximately 80% of the population think the country is going in the wrong direction, but many don't understand the sordid role the banks played in the 2008 melt-down or our politicians' complicity with it all, and that this could have been prevented if the system was not so corrupt. We have to tap into that discontent on a bigger scale than we have been doing.

Sure, if we could get the plurality of the people fired up well before the election and we could give canidates a real mandate, maybe then go political. I just have no faith in the two parties out there to ever do the right thing. With the exception perhaps of town politics, every step up becomes more and more corrupt

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I have no faith in them to do so, either That is why I think we need to run our own cadidates and back those few with a record of honesty. Personally, I don't think we can just ignore the election process, simply because by far the majority of this country still sees that as the path to power and legitimacy. Maybe at some point they will be disgusted enough that they will no longer be the case, but I don't think they're ready to abandon that yet, and they many never get there.

After all, elections ARE the democratic process. It is up to us to restore their true legitimacy, and to annull the power of money to corrupt them. That is what the founders meant when they said "eternal vigillance," and we have all fallen far short of that mandate.

I think we will get a lot further with the majority if we take this approach along with continued non-cooperation, and in this case I think the majority would be right.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Sounds like a good plan to me. I just hope we can open up a lot more people's eyes between now and the elections. Maybe we could come up with a 'pledge' for any potential canidate that we support to sign. I just worry that some will consider that a victory for what we are trying to do, and go home. In order to have a real 'sea change', we have to stay out in the streets, and they have to feel our rage, otherwise things will soon revert back to the corrupt status quo.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I agree with this comment absolutely! The whole point of this post is that it would be ridiculous to preclude ANY means available to us to defeat this monstrosity of international corporatism that has humanity in chains! They are very powerful, and they will not give up. We must use ALL means at our disposal to fight this monster if we are to have a chance at killing it!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Yes!

[-] -1 points by RussellFeingold (55) 2 years ago

You're wasting your time on this forum. These OWS losers don't even plan to vote. They really think that the way to get what they want is to lock themselves inside their bedrooms and sit on their asses in front of their computers, just like when Mom & Dad told them to take out the trash.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Firstly, your assumption of Russ Feingold's name is disgusting; secondly your assumption that we won't vote is dreaming.