Occupy Wall Street - Winter is Coming Edition

[Relic]

Continue.

Anyone know what the OWS NYC group did during the freak snowstorm that hit the NE last week?

[TrackerNeil]

Agreed. I just hope those protesters realize that any successful social movement must also translate to political action. Raising awareness is good; voting for candidates likely to support your causes is better.

[drawkcabi]

I hope the protesters were able to find some shelter in all of that, I admire the fortitude of anyone who stuck it out during that mess, that's patriotism in my book.

Agreed. I just hope those protesters realize that any successful social movement must also translate to political action. Raising awareness is good; voting for candidates likely to support your causes is better.

Very much agreed. Problem is wishy-washy is the rule rather than the exception with politicians and it seems to almost always come down to choosing a candidate that at most supports some of your causes and at the least is not against any of your causes, and no matter what they are usually mostly talk and little action.

So I see why there's so many people fed up with voting but you just got to keep voting for the politicians that have the potential to do the most good in our eyes even if reality is they still won't do that much. I have to believe if we keep pushing with our votes we're able to budge the country bit by bit towards more progressive policies.

[awesome possum]

We'll slowly become a more and more progressive country as the worst of the baby boomers die out and take their awful influences with them.

In the meantime, OWS has time, but they need to focus the anger and frustration on voting. Those arguing that, "well we'll just withhold our vote and show them!" are doing exactly what the establishment wants.

A good start would be to vote out all incumbents, no matter what party they are.

Otherwise, and I can feel the future collective gasps of joy from our resident cons already, OWS will end up being just a bunch of people standing around holding signs.

[Howdyphillip]

A good start would be to vote out all incumbents, no matter what party they are.

If you vote out all of the incumbents that means that you have to vote for whoever is in the other party in the system we currently have. That leaves the House in Democratic hands and that leaves the Senate and President to the Republicans... What you have there is more political gridlock, with the lobbyist greasing different pockets. That is functionally pointless.

What we need is a constitutional amendment on election reform. Campaigns should go on no longer then one month, and debates should be the only formats allowed. They should be televised at taxpayer expense, and no money should ever go to any candidate. That is what we should be pushing for if we really want any possibility of things changing.

I will go vote, but functionally our vote is useless as things stand now. Money still controls the decisions of our government.

[awesome possum]

If you vote out all of the incumbents that means that you have to vote for whoever is in the other party in the system we currently have. That leaves the House in Democratic hands and that leaves the Senate and President to the Republicans... What you have there is more political gridlock, with the lobbyist greasing different pockets. That is functionally pointless.

You say this as if there's a solid chance of voting out every incumbent. It's pretty much impossible, as you said because money rules politics.

But start off small. Target some incumbents from both sides of the aisle who appear weak this year. Don't let the DNC or RNC declare who will run against who. Find a candidate, I don't care if he's some insane hobo. Vote out an incumbent and put him into office. Let the message be stated clearly: we can and will remove you unless you start working for us.

[Lummel]

So can we foreigners expect to see US politics dominated by insane hobos in future?

Question: if the majority in congress and the senate was made up of insane hobos would business be smoother flowing or more gridlocked than today?

[Atreides]

I don't know if voting in "any" candidate is that answer. That seems to have been the Tea Party's way of dealing with incumbents, and the results have been hilariously sad. If we get a bunch of progressive crazies in Congress, it will become a circus 100%.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HP,

You can vote for non-major party candidates and write in others.

[Swordfish]

I hope the protesters were able to find some shelter in all of that, I admire the fortitude of anyone who stuck it out during that mess, that's patriotism in my book.

Very much agreed. Problem is wishy-washy is the rule rather than the exception with politicians and it seems to almost always come down to choosing a candidate that at most supports some of your causes and at the least is not against any of your causes, and no matter what they are usually mostly talk and little action.

So I see why there's so many people fed up with voting but you just got to keep voting for the politicians that have the potential to do the most good in our eyes even if reality is they still won't do that much. I have to believe if we keep pushing with our votes we're able to budge the country bit by bit towards more progressive policies.

The country has been becoming more progressive since, basically, forever.......

So can we foreigners expect to see US politics dominated by insane hobos in future?

Question: if the majority in congress and the senate was made up of insane hobos would business be smoother flowing or more gridlocked than today?

I'm not convinced that the majority of congress ISN'T made up of insane hobos.....

[awesome possum]

Question: if the majority in congress and the senate was made up of insane hobos would business be smoother flowing or more gridlocked than today?

Much more smoothly. Everyone will be in a hurry to finish debate and get the votes done so they're not late for happy hour.

I don't know if voting in "any" candidate is that answer. That seems to have been the Tea Party's way of dealing with incumbents, and the results have been hilariously sad. If we get a bunch of progressive crazies in Congress, it will become a circus 100%.

It's already a circus.

And I'd argue that the tea party didn't just put up "any" candidates. They put up people that rigidly adhered to their philosophy of "Obama and taxes bad and, uh ... line!"

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you vote out all of the incumbents that means that you have to vote for whoever is in the other party in the system we currently have. That leaves the House in Democratic hands and that leaves the Senate and President to the Republicans... What you have there is more political gridlock, with the lobbyist greasing different pockets. That is functionally pointless.

I agree with that completely.

What we need is a constitutional amendment on election reform. Campaigns should go on no longer then one month, and debates should be the only formats allowed. They should be televised at taxpayer expense, and no money should ever go to any candidate. That is what we should be pushing for if we really want any possibility of things changing.

And I disagree with that just as completely. What you're talking about is an election mechanism controlled completely by the state. The disadvantages of that should be obvious. Not only does it amount to an Incumbent Protection Act, but the level of regulation and scrutiny to define what constitutes a "campaign", prohibiting people from speaking out unless it is in some debate whose rules will be controlled by the government as well...that's just creepy, dude.

[Atreides]

Putting up insane, but liberal hobos would only be marginally better than Angle, O'Donnell, Taitz, Sheriff Joe, and the other nutters that the Tea Partiers support for elected office. And right now I'd say it's only 90% circus, because there are a few people left (mostly on the left) that are still trying to get things passed.

[drawkcabi]

The country has been becoming more progressive since, basically, forever.......

Yes, always in a 2 steps forward one step back sort of way though. In the past 10 years it's been one step forward and 2 steps back and that ledge behind us is getting awfully close...

I don't know, maybe other people thought the same thing at other points in history, before the civil war, after the civil war, during the Great Depression, just before and during the civil rights movements, Vietnam, Watergate, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about what's going on in this time (not suggesting you implied that, just making a general statement).

[Shryke]

I don't know if voting in "any" candidate is that answer. That seems to have been the Tea Party's way of dealing with incumbents, and the results have been hilariously sad. If we get a bunch of progressive crazies in Congress, it will become a circus 100%.

Why would it be a circus?

And the Tea Party has been very successful. The GOP is pandering their asses off to them.

The Tea Party's problem has been that large parts of the general public doesn't agree with them so while they can shift the GOP by getting their candidates in races, they can't get some of those candidates to actually win.

[Shryke]

Yes, always in a 2 steps forward one step back sort of way though. In the past 10 years it's been one step forward and 2 steps back and that ledge behind us is getting awfully close...

I don't know, maybe other people thought the same thing at other points in history, before the civil war, after the civil war, during the Great Depression, just before and during the civil rights movements, Vietnam, Watergate, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about what's going on in this time (not suggesting you implied that, just making a general statement).

The US populace has been getting more progressive over the years, but that's the way it goes. Old conservatives die and younger more liberal people take their place.

The problem is the US voter has not been changing as fast. Mostly because the voting public skews old and also because the Right in the US has spent like ... 4 decades very successfully executing a bottom-up electoral strategy.

While most of the youth and progressive vote have been trying to figure out whether they should vote at all (once every 4 years only of course and only for the President), the conservative vote has been coming out like clock-work every election, for everything from the Presidency on down to local schoolboards. And the more the demographics shift against them, the harder they fight. How many anti-gay amendments/laws/etc have been passed at the state level in just the last like 10 years? That's all new shit. They are pushing hard against demographics and, very often, winning.

[Horza]

Largely because the electoral system, from voter registration, through electoral boundaries to the electoral college is varying shades of unrepresentative, partisan and biddable.

[Howdyphillip]

And I disagree with that just as completely. What you're talking about is an election mechanism controlled completely by the state. The disadvantages of that should be obvious. Not only does it amount to an Incumbent Protection Act, but the level of regulation and scrutiny to define what constitutes a "campaign", prohibiting people from speaking out unless it is in some debate whose rules will be controlled by the government as well...that's just creepy, dude.

What is creepy is that it took two years of campaigning and 5.8 billion dollars spent on the overall election of 2008.

What is creepy is the moment a congressman steps foot in office his primary responsibility is to try and raise funds for a reelection.

What is creepy is that we now allow companies to donate to election funds...

Having a non partisan state run election is sensible...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Having a non partisan state run election is sensible...

Having a non-partisan state run election is impossible.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Having a non-partisan state run election is impossible.

I have to agree with this. I think it would just more firmly entrench incumbents.