This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
367020
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
You seem to be missing the point. You seem to be implying that campaign finance is intended to fix the problem of voter education, when it's not.I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying that the money spent on a campaign influences voters, when it should not, but that they should be influenced by being educated about the candidates. It is not the money spent that is the issue here, it is the education level of the voters. I am saying that that CANNOT be fixed by anybody but the voters. I'm saying that.
How exactly does the voting population - not a local part of it, but nationwide - learn about a candidate who has no money to spend on his or her campaign? How is someone in California going to know that a guy in Boston, running a campaign out of his garage, is even running for the office, if the Bostonian isn't spending money on his campaign? How is he going to research the Bostonian's platform when he hasn't even heard of the guy?
Let's make it more realistic and say that the Bostonian guy is running as an independent, but only has about $50,000 to spend to advertise the fact that he's running. In an election, who has a better chance of winning - the Bostonian who might be able to afford a billboard or two in each state in his home region, or the guy who has a million dollars to ensure that he has billboards in every state and a nightly presence on major television networks nationwide?
I see what you're saying about the two topics being linked. But saying, "Only the voters can educate themselves," is ignoring the fact that in order to even have a chance to research the candidate, they have to know the candidate exists. If the government can assist with that by ensuring that all candidates have an equal public presence throughout the nation, by limiting the funds spent on the campaigns for all candidates, then it places all candidates on a more equal footing as to exposure to the voting public.
There may be other solutions, but to say, "It's up to the voters, so let's leave things as they are," isn't any sort of solution at all.
Post by
MyTie
There may be other solutions, but to say, "It's up to the voters, so let's leave things as they are," isn't any sort of solution at all.
A person that has 55K, that lives in Boston, that wants to be a changing force in politics, needs to run for a local office. If he wins, it means the voters there supported his ideals. At that point, he needs to run for a higher office, on donations from his constituency. If he/she wins, that means that person needs to run for an even higher office, etc. You don't just wake up one day and run for the presidency. You take your political ideals, and try them out on the political field, first. IF the electorate were informed about the candidates, and free to donate money to the candidate of their choosing, then there should be noone in office that doesn't represent the will of the people. However, people just vote for the biggest billboard, or the rock star (lookin at you Obama), and then get their feelings hurt when the office holder acts contrary to what they want. The way to solve the problem still isn't campaign finance reform, but education.
Post by
Heckler
lol, so silly. Moving on.
It's pretty surprising to listen to some of the street-polls about the Occupy protesters all over the country and their views on Obama and the Democrats -- I'd hardly call them friendly. Now I'm not pretending that OWS isn't more in-line with the political left than the right; but when it comes to corporate influence and corruption, both parties are very guilty. The Republicans did a pretty good job of usurping the Tea Party title for themselves, and I assume Democrats will try to do the same to OWS if it continues to grow.
The Democrats have always prided themselves on being "big tent," so it will probably be a pretty easy usurpation if OWS continues to poll well. From my own perspective, I think the best thing that could happen to the Democratic party would be a progressive shift; that is, OWS changes the Dems, not vice versa (and with the overwhelming Union support being shown to OWS, who knows. That's the other 'edge' of Citizens United, it allows Unions to donate unlimited money right alongside corporations). But as of yet, they are explicitly trying to stay non-partisan, and they keep saying "this isn't a political movement, this is a social movement." And there's a whole bunch of Anti-Obama and Anti-Democrat signs alongside the others.
Post by
MyTie
lol, so silly.
Now then... What is the end goal of your "progressive shift"? What would be your idea of the ideal society?
Post by
MyTie
A
good article
on OWS.
Post by
Heckler
Now then... What is the end goal of your "progressive shift"? What would be your idea of the ideal society?
I'm not going to answer this because I want to keep the conversation on topic, and I really dislike your 'competing monologue' style of discussion. If you want to have a conversation about ideal societies, I'm sure it would spark a lot of interest -- you should start a different thread.
A
good article
on OWS.
This actually is a good article. I look over the postings at
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
every day, and every so often there's a "troll" posting. They are good to see because it really does set a stark contrast to view OWS against. It also relates to my previous post, perhaps the OWS and Democrats can stay pretty well insulated from each other -- the Right Wing crazies are going to define themselves as the enemy of both, regardless of any alliance between them (politically, a win).
The more the right wing doubles down and claims that a 35 year old who did everything right, who just wanted a piece of the American Dream, and then due to no fault of their own was kicked in the street and left with nothing has no one to blame but themselves; the more the Average American who is working each month to pay a mortgage on a property that is probably underwater, praying that they don't get sick or laid off will see the clear ideological choice being presented to them. The more Republicans who bring up taxation and openly defend a 16% effective tax rate on the top 1% alongside a 25% rate on the bottom 50%; the clearer the distinction will become. And the more Right Wingers who have to write OpEds and go on TV to insist that "no one is paying attention anyways," the more people will start paying attention.
Keep the articles coming.
Post by
MyTie
Now then... What is the end goal of your "progressive shift"? What would be your idea of the ideal society?
I'm not going to answer this because I want to keep the conversation on topic, and I really dislike your 'competing monologue' style of discussion. If you want to have a conversation about ideal societies, I'm sure it would spark a lot of interest -- you should start a different thread.
Why wouldn't "ideal societies" fit into this thread? The point of the OWS protesters is to overturn capitalism, and you suggest that there needs to be a progressive push. I assume you meant economically progressive, since this topic is about economics. So, my question is, what do OWS, and people who want a progressive push in general, want? What is the end goal here? After the destruction of capitalism... then what? A constant state of stimulus? Communism? What?
I dislike being patronized and dismissed, and then told I'm offtopic, when I couldn't be more on topic.
Post by
Heckler
Why wouldn't "ideal societies" fit into this thread? The point of the OWS protesters is to overturn capitalism, and you suggest that there needs to be a progressive push. I assume you meant economically progressive, since this topic is about economics. So, my question is, what do OWS, and people who want a progressive push in general, want? What is the end goal here? After the destruction of capitalism... then what? A constant state of stimulus? Communism? What?
I dislike being patronized and dismissed, and then told I'm offtopic, when I couldn't be more on topic.
Noted.
Again, I'm not going to answer your question. I'll also say again that your style of discussion has convinced me that you don't actually care about my answers to these questions you're posing, and I honestly can't even bring myself to provide you more justification (it's an almost unbearable hassle just to point out that the destruction of capitalism isn't anywhere in my goal list -- you would know that if you actually had "dialogue" vice "competing monologue"). If anyone else wants to chime in to answer your off-topic questions, they can -- I'm just not going to.
I'll also be ignoring further posts about it. I like having a thread to post interesting news stories related to OWS in, and a place to find new ones posted by others; and I would hate to see it locked because it can't stay on topic. On that note...
The local movement here,
OccupySeattle
(this is a pretty cool website, I especially like the 'Demands' section), has a march planned tonight. Their numbers have been growing steadily for the last weeks, but it looked like it was already starting to fizzle when cops arrested 25 people on Wednesday (for setting up tents in a public park). Now they're working with the police more 'properly,' and the march today has police escorts; the state DOT is even advising alternate traffic routes to minimize impact there. Pretty interesting, I honestly didn't expect anything to spring up in Seattle because its starting to get really cold, I'll be curious to see how long they hold out through the winter. Here's the
local news story
if anyone is interested.
Post by
MyTie
Noted.
Again, I'm not going to answer your question. I'll also say again that your style of discussion has convinced me that you don't actually care about my answers to these questions you're posing, and I honestly can't even bring myself to provide you more justification (it's an almost unbearable hassle just to point out that the destruction of capitalism isn't anywhere in my goal list -- you would know that if you actually had "dialogue" vice "competing monologue"). If anyone else wants to chime in to answer your off-topic questions, they can -- I'm just not going to.
I'll also be ignoring further posts about it. I like having a thread to post interesting news stories related to OWS in, and a place to find new ones posted by others; and I would hate to see it locked because it can't stay on topic. On that note...
This thread isn't just for posting news stories related to OWS, but also to discuss the motives and merits of OWS. I maintain that I am on topic as much as you maintain that I am off topic.
You don't have to answer my questions. Unlike some, I will not hold it against you, or assume that you concede because you reserve answer. I will, however, counter your claim that I don't care about your answers. I think that the answers you provide will give me insight into your logic and view of government. I doubt I will agree, but I will gain perspective. If nothing else, I will respect your views.
As for your insistence that this is a "monologue" versus a "dialogue", I would point out that I am addressing your claims and responding to the stories you link. I am very interested in holding a dialogue.
I insist that we continue to debate the merits of OWS. This will not end in the thread being locked, as long as the moderators are competent, which they have lately displayed a knack for. In fact, I don't think this thread is anywhere close to being locked.
Now, if you continue to insist on not addressing the points further, I'll leave you alone. But, I want to question you one last time about this: If you do not believe in an end to capitalism, what solution would you offer to the OWS protesters? Further, if you do not have the same goals as the OWS protesters, what do you theorize their end goals are?
Post by
Heckler
I already posted multiple long-winded posts which have answers to those questions, which you never addressed. If you don't address my responses, and instead continue to keep saying the same stuff without any sort of defense of the specific parts of your posts that I have addressed (or other things I've addressed that you may agree with), then I'm going to assume that you want to monologue, and I'm going to stop putting effort forth (in terms of posting) to carry out a dialogue with you.
So unless you go back and look for the info you're asking in posts that you apparently just skimmed or skipped over completely, I'm going to keep ignoring your efforts to 'debate' with me, because I think you're being disingenuous. If I am providing you "insight into my logic and view of government," and that holds value, you could at least reciprocate the effort.
Also, good luck in your Magic game, I'm following it closely. Don't mistake my attitude here as some sort of indictment of you as a person. It's just that you're making it seem like all you want to do is demagogue your side of this discussion without much sort of factual or historical basis or depth, and you don't reply to posts that I sincerely try to put a lot of effort into specifically to provide that level of depth... so why should I keep trying?
Post by
MyTie
I already posted multiple long-winded posts which have answers to those questions, which you never addressed. If you don't address my responses, and instead continue to keep saying the same stuff without any sort of defense of the specific parts of your posts that I have addressed (or other things I've addressed that you may agree with), then I'm going to assume that you want to monologue, and I'm going to stop putting effort forth (in terms of posting) to carry out a dialogue with you.
So unless you go back and look for the info you're asking in posts that you apparently just skimmed or skipped over completely, I'm going to keep ignoring your efforts to 'debate' with me, because I think you're being disingenuous. If I am providing you "insight into my logic and view of government," and that holds value, you could at least reciprocate the effort.
Also, good luck in your Magic game, I'm following it closely. Don't mistake my attitude here as some sort of indictment of you as a person. It's just that you're making it seem like all you want to do is demagogue your side of this discussion without much sort of factual or historical basis or depth, and you don't reply to posts that I sincerely try to put a lot of effort into specifically to provide that level of depth... so why should I keep trying?
Well, thanks for that Heckler. I'll go back and reread all your posts later tonight when I have more time. Sorry if I overlooked something. To be continued....
Post by
gamerunknown
A person that has 55K, that lives in Boston, that wants to be a changing force in politics, needs to run for a local office. If he wins, it means the voters there supported his ideals. At that point, he needs to run for a higher office, on donations from his constituency. If he/she wins, that means that person needs to run for an even higher office, etc. You don't just wake up one day and run for the presidency. You take your political ideals, and try them out on the political field, first. IF the electorate were informed about the candidates, and free to donate money to the candidate of their choosing, then there should be noone in office that doesn't represent the will of the people. However, people just vote for the biggest billboard, or the rock star (lookin at you Obama), and then get their feelings hurt when the office holder acts contrary to what they want. The way to solve the problem still isn't campaign finance reform, but education.
I'll address this because Heckler passed over it: there would be no equality of opportunity. If all politicians assumed local office, then progressed along a set career path, it would be fair. But the independently wealthy do not have to do that. Not to mention that the left wing that tend to vote in favour of the poor would be disproportionately affected and we are thus more likely to see career politicians that care more about image on the left, rather than those that worked in other jobs then were convinced some issue was worthy of fighting for. Not that I hold any particular antipathy to career politicians, but it's one argument worth considering. The other issue is how educating voters would occur. Would it use public money? Which group would be behind producing the leaflets and websites? If it were to be the candidate themselves, doesn't the issue present itself unchanged? Given the fact that as it stands there is a discrepancy, wouldn't it be fair to equalise expenditure until a reasonable solution can be applied? Perhaps repealing the Voting Rights Act would work?
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Jubilee
I feel so sorry for these people doing the OWS and the other protests. They so clearly need professional help. While denouncing the "massive corporations" they profess to want to bring down, they are constantly using products made by these same corporations. But there's hope. When it gets cold enough, they will go back to where they came from. And then, there's a small chance they can get the the help they so desperately need.
If a slave was protesting his status as a slave, would you ignore his protests based on the fact that he is eating the food his master give him?
I don't think it's wrong for people to protest a system from within a system, they do need to have a viable alternative though.
Post by
Heckler
Today's Paul Krugman
column was on OWS again. I rather like this one =) Ezra Klein called the OWS protestors "
Paul Krugman's Army
" before Krugman had addressed them much, seems he may have taken the idea to heart.
Locally, the Seattle city government is making some surprising public statements in support of the OccupySeattle movement. You can find the
Mayor of Seattle's official statement here
if you're interested. The state has also set up some special rules concerning the occupation zone, which can be found on
http://www.seattle.gov/living/occupyseattle.htm
. May not be very applicable to anyone on this forum, but it is an interesting look at the non-New York parts of the overall OWS movement.
Personally, I've been questioning how successful the Civil Rights movement would have been without the 'powerful'
leaders
they had. Seems to me if OWS doesn't get some "leadership" of that form, it probably won't hold out much longer. On the flipside, the rise of a charismatic Dr. King-like figure in OWS could really propel the movement into something substantial. If nothing else, it should be interesting to watch at least for a few more weeks.
Post by
MyTie
Ok, Heckler, sorry for the delay, but I had a chance finally to go back and reread this thread. The first thing I noticed was how thorough and well informed your posts were. You have my compliments. Next, I never saw one of your posts which was directed at me, that I didn't address. If you would clarify when this happened, I will be happy to render my opinion. Lastly, I never found where you proposed a viable alternative to capitalism. When I asked what the viable alternative to capitalism is, since OWS desires the destruction of capitalism, you never gave what you feel an alternative is, nor what OWS proposes. If I have again missed your post on this, please let me know, and I will again go back and reread this thread. If you misunderstood the question, please post your opinion. If you don't desire to give your opinion, or have no opinion, let me know this, or simply do not reply to this post, and I will not ask you anymore.
Again, I'm not looking for what OWS, or you (since you indicated you would like a progressive push), feel is "wrong" with capitalism. I'm wondering what alternative economic model is desired.
Post by
MyTie
I feel so sorry for these people doing the OWS and the other protests. They so clearly need professional help. While denouncing the "massive corporations" they profess to want to bring down, they are constantly using products made by these same corporations. But there's hope. When it gets cold enough, they will go back to where they came from. And then, there's a small chance they can get the the help they so desperately need.
If a slave was protesting his status as a slave, would you ignore his protests based on the fact that he is eating the food his master give him?
I don't think it's wrong for people to protest a system from within a system, they do need to have a viable alternative though.
No, but these aren't slaves. These are free adults living in a society that gives them full capability to support themselves. They are living in an economy that is currently having trouble. For some reason, they are blaming the economy itself, and not the government poison coursing through the economy's veins. I fear their desire is for more government involvement in the economy. Perhaps the end result will be additional regulations or taxes, which will mean more exported jobs. *sigh*
Post by
Orranis
I spent a good deal of my weekend here, pretty interesting scene. There were a few people who didn't really understand the message (I saw a sign that said "Unite and we'll take over the world!"... What?).
What I'm kind of worried about is that the movements going to be picked up by the democratic party, which it's not at all.
Post by
Heckler
Lastly, I never found where you proposed a viable alternative to capitalism. When I asked what the viable alternative to capitalism is, since OWS desires the destruction of capitalism, you never gave what you feel an alternative is, nor what OWS proposes.
Giving you a short answer because I'm on my way to a class.
Your generalization that OWS desires the destruction of capitalism is incomplete and premature. Surely
some
of the people there desire that goal (the local socialist movement is supporting OWS, for example). But because I disagree that in a General Assembly people would agree to a motion to "Support and End to Capitalism," I think your premise is false, and an answer is therefore not warranted.
I support capitalism, and I think the more informed people in OWS do too (I would even venture to say that the action I see as prudent would be for the purpose of
protecting
'free access' to capitalism). As with the Tea Party, I'm willing to dismiss a large fraction of the OWS group as uninformed angry people with no real goals or focus rather than expression of general anger.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.