Wall Street Protests

[Scheavo]

Interesting find, my only hesitance being from the research methods (only two questions, sampling by phone which can be iffy [although it's good they hit both landlane and cell, etc.)

I don't think they can call cell numbers.  I could be wrong, but I've never got a solicitation on my cell phone, but got plenty on my land line when I had that.

I get political calls on my cell phone all the time, most likely because I do not have a land line.

Also, that site says I'm 3.31%, surprises me.

It really puts into perspective how much better off we are in this country than in many other parts of the world.

Ya, it's only a shame that things like food and housing still take up such a large chunk of most peoples budgets.

[Super Dude]

Goon: I'm moderate left. If anything, I think people on the extremes of either end of the spectrum most out of touch with political realities.

I'm not talking about people like you. Obviously, you and the other moderates that visit this subforum are informed. I can't find the book I'm looking for that had the studies in it, but it goes against the conventional wisdom you're purporting. The ends of the spectrum are most politically active and therefore most informed, whereas most of the middle is unactive and uninformed.

I'll update the post if I find what I'm looking for. G'damn college books all disappearing on me.

I believe you, maybe it's just the most uninformed are the loudest, as with the Tea Party.

Perhaps I should rephrase my complaint and say I wish there was a movement with moderate aims, i.e. nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.

[antigoon]

Fair enough. I don't think most people there really favor that, though.

[Super Dude]

Also fair. I dunno, maybe they should just not write up any terms, for the sake of universality and non-partisanship.

[Scheavo]

nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.

1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"

2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.

[jsem]

Then you want to remove all the say of even non-profit organizations? Then unions should have NO say in the political process with contributions. Consumer advocate groups shouldn't either. That's lobbying, so you have to remove their influences too if you're going to be consistent.

Painting with a broad brush like that can be hurtful. Though it might be a net benefit, subsidies to certain groups would end fairly quickly, and congressmen will be held accountable easily at the next elections meaning that people have a "lobbying" power after all.

[7StringedBeast]

I am the 11.16% 

I wish it told me what percent of the USA I am.

[kirksnosehair]

nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.

1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"

2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.

By definition "Lobbying" is most certainly not corruption.  It can certainly be used in ways that are corrupt, but the act itself is perfectly legal.

[Scheavo]

nothing so radical as abolishing lobbying or the concept of a national bank.

1) Lobbying is corruption, so unless you want a corrupt government, you're gonna be "radical"

2) They're not advocating to get rid of the concept of a national bank, only the national bank currently in existence.

By definition "Lobbying" is most certainly not corruption.  It can certainly be used in ways that are corrupt, but the act itself is perfectly legal.

Oh I know it's legal, and protected by the first amendment (which is why the fix is a constitutional one). So are the corporate tax loop holes, and all the other stuff which is corruption. Corruption, at it's worse, is legal. Corruption is the use of public power to private ends, at least in a democratic government.

Then you want to remove all the say of even non-profit organizations? Then unions should have NO say in the political process with contributions. Consumer advocate groups shouldn't either. That's lobbying, so you have to remove their influences too if you're going to be consistent.

I like how you get to assume things about my position, then say I'm not being consistent. It would really help if you pay attention to my position, and my argument.

Lobby the media, lobby the public. Lobbying congressional members is basically bypassing the public measures we put in place to ensure that the government serves the public good, and not private desires. I mean, for crying out loud, we're having this discussion right now on how to fix our government, and it's not being done by lobbying the government in Washington, DC. There are obviously other ways to address the government, and problems associated with the government, and there's no real way to allow lobbying, and screen out the corrupting influences. There are other ways communicating the message without throwing money at the system.

[Super Dude]

And how does one ensure they'll listen? Words are nice but in the end, money talks.

[Scheavo]

And how does one ensure they'll listen? Words are nice but in the end, money talks.

How do you ensure this under our current system? What if you don't have money? Under this system, you're giving those with the most money the most influence - which is exactly what the problem is!

Money talking is exactly the fucking problem in government. Money and politics do not mix, they lead to corruption. I would much, much rather have a non-corrupt government that has a hearing problem than a corrupt government who only has an ear for the powerful. We have social media today, and the "they" you talk about is all of us.

[jsem]

I completely agree. Money and politics shouldn't mix at all. Campaign finance reform should be 100% considered in the US.

[Super Dude]

Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.

[Scheavo]

Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.

Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.

We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.

[jsem]

the over all amount of corruption would be less.

[Super Dude]

Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.

Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.

We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.

I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.

As to the second bit: demagoguery. It's one of the most glancing flaws of democratic politics.

[Riceball]

So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.

I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.

I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)

Oh and I am the 0.84 per cent. I feel bad now.

[Scheavo]

Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.

Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.

We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.

I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.

I think it's a perfectly apt comparison, because in both cases, the problem involved can't be gotten rid of completely. To say that getting rid of the very overt and open corruption of our political system, through private financing and corporate lobbying, is wrong because there'd still be corruption is a horrible argument to make.

We're presenting a better solution, and you complain that a better solution isn't be come up with. So I'm very confused as to how you're saying that.

The only way "to account for under-the-table money and whatnot," is to try and make it so the politicians in office don't take the under-the-table money, and have a more open and fair process, so that when corruption does happen, it's easier to spot. Like my analogy, there will always be corruption, and under the table money, as there will always be rape; you can't hold impossibly high expectation, and think a solution is bad becuase it's not perfect. What count is it's better than what we have now.

So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.

I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.

They aren't against government, and it's institutionalization, they're against corrupt government and big corporations. They're not rallying against caucus, branches, or executives... I'm not even sure where you're getting that idea from?

I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)

I think its' quite obvious that they're winning favorable treatment. You don't need to measure it per say, but when every candidate has to be filtered through the corporate money process, before anyone can actually vote on them, it's quite obvious. Jon Boehner actually handed out checks from the tobacco industry to fellow Republicans house members right before a vote regarding the tobacco industry, on the floor of the House.

[Riceball]

So wait... you're concerned now that they may actually get something done? They're really damned if they do, damned if they don't, for you.

I'm not concerned that they might get something done, in fact I'm all for that (I hope I'm not coming across like that...). My concern is that a lot of what they say has no base, its just conspiracy theories (as outlined by Super Dude previously). The fact that they have also decided to set up caucusus, branches and an executive seems a bit rich when they are rallying against that kind of system.

They aren't against government, and it's institutionalization, they're against corrupt government and big corporations. They're not rallying against caucus, branches, or executives... I'm not even sure where you're getting that idea from?

I also think that big money and politics can't mix, whether these theories of corporate donation winning favourable treatment are true or not (I'm not saying they are, and I'm not saying they aren't - how do you measure that kind of thing?)

I think its' quite obvious that they're winning favorable treatment. You don't need to measure it per say, but when every candidate has to be filtered through the corporate money process, before anyone can actually vote on them, it's quite obvious. Jon Boehner actually handed out checks from the tobacco industry to fellow Republicans house members right before a vote regarding the tobacco industry, on the floor of the House.

Ok, maybe not directly, but they are expressing frustration with the way the political system functions and by extension the institutions that come with it. I guess the structure of their organisation isn't really the issue though, its more about their agenda and how it has/will form.

Ok again, thats pretty fucked up. Quite clearly, the US political system is broken, and groups like the Occupy movement help to give the issue attention. I'm still skeptical, even with their funky new exterior, whether they can achieve anything meaningful without buy-in from someone on the "inside" for lack of a better term.

[Super Dude]

Just because money will not be allowed in politics following such a change doesn't mean it won't happen. Any solution must account for that.

Rape will happen, even with a police force and rape prevention measures; and I'd be stunned if you think rape should be legal.

We'd be able to elect politicians who aren't so easily corruptible, and the over all amount of corruption would be less.

I think that's an unfair comparison, but if I must address that case, no I would not. To jump back to a discussion we were having with Orthogonal about a week ago regarding murder, not to say we should *wait* to have a better solution, but why not come up with a better solution now? We shouldn't just take the first thing that works and say, "Okay, let's do that." We should springboard to better alternatives from there, especially because there is no quick fix and any solution to money in politics will inevitably have to account for under-the-table money and whatnot.

I think it's a perfectly apt comparison, because in both cases, the problem involved can't be gotten rid of completely. To say that getting rid of the very overt and open corruption of our political system, through private financing and corporate lobbying, is wrong because there'd still be corruption is a horrible argument to make.

We're presenting a better solution, and you complain that a better solution isn't be come up with. So I'm very confused as to how you're saying that.

The only way "to account for under-the-table money and whatnot," is to try and make it so the politicians in office don't take the under-the-table money, and have a more open and fair process, so that when corruption does happen, it's easier to spot. Like my analogy, there will always be corruption, and under the table money, as there will always be rape; you can't hold impossibly high expectation, and think a solution is bad becuase it's not perfect. What count is it's better than what we have now.

My fear is that in spite of all that, it will not only not be better but be no different. In other words, the only thing that'll change is how the corrupt go about hiding their misdeedery.

I mean I hate to say it, but we're talking about power and privilege here. People who are intent on breaking the rules won't care about new rules being set in place, they'll only learn how to get around them or how to appear as if they're playing along.

Edit: Also maybe I missed it but I didn't see the better solution you proposed.

Edit 2: If by a better solution you meant being able to elect politicians who aren't easily corruptible, how do you check for that? And even if you could, someone can always lie, or as I said, learn how to hide their misdeeds.

[Scheavo]

Publicly finance elections. Get rid of the lobbying in Washington, where votes are basically bought with money, gifts, and other necessities. I mean, we're debating the proposal to get rid of lobbying, that's the better solution being offered up. I'm very confused as to how that's getting overlooked?

Demagoguery is always a problem, corrupt politicians are always a problem, and I'm not saying we can get rid of them. I'm saying we shouldn't have a system where corrupt politicians are the norm, and the not the exception.

Also, term limits can help; as can getting rid of the special privileges congress members have (they can legally perform insider trader).

My fear is that in spite of all that, it will not only not be better but be no different. In other words, the only thing that'll change is how the corrupt go about hiding their misdeedery.

If it's no different, it's no worse. Since we're pretty much at rock bottom in terms of corruption, the only possibilities are up. Why not give it a chance, and if it doesn't work, what did we lose? Nothing. We'd be where we'd be if we didn't do anything.

Ok again, thats pretty fucked up. Quite clearly, the US political system is broken, and groups like the Occupy movement help to give the issue attention. I'm still skeptical, even with their funky new exterior, whether they can achieve anything meaningful without buy-in from someone on the "inside" for lack of a better term.

I actually think the course of events say that this isn't happening as of yet, too much. I mean, you have some people supporting this movement who have always fought for these kinds of issues (as EV would claim, "ACORN" is involved), but surveys of the protesters have consistently found that these protests are not along party lines, even if they're along ideological lines.

I mean, I have my doubts too, but I don't think we've seen enough yet to draw a conclusion. It hasn't sold out as of yet, and at least that "99percentdeclaration" is seeking to fix the problem by bypassing the current political system, and calling for a new constitutional convention.

[Super Dude]

We are not at rock bottom. An American society that's truly gone to rock bottom would look like Late Antiquity Rome (if Cole were still here he'd vouch for me on that one).

[Scheavo]

In terms of corruption, I'd say we're at rock bottom. Look at what's going on in congress right now; nothing is getting done, even though the public needs it, because a rather small minority of people are being obstructionist, and abusing the system to fit their private wants. The system is completely broken.

I'm not entirely pessimistic about or society, as of yet, so socially speaking, I don't even think we're really in too much trouble. It's politically, the very make-up of our country... what used to be called it's constitution... that I think is rotten, and I don't know how it could really get much more broken and in trouble.

[antigoon]

If there's anyone out there who still doesn't really get how the whole corruption thing works or how pervasive it is, Archlobbyist douchebag Jack Abramoff lays it out pretty well in this 60 Minutes segment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10#t=1m28s

[antigoon]

police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!

[kirksnosehair]

Damn     What the hell was that for?  Let's poke these kids with our batons...um...because...um....we can?

[Rathma]

I guess that's the new way to deal with protesters; ram them strait in their genetilia.

[Chino]

I guess that's the new way to deal with protesters; ram them strait in their genetilia.

And start with the small Asian female.

That video was disgusting. I'm glad they all stood there instead of running away.

[Rathma]

And start with the small Asian female.

That's what I noticed first and thought damn this guy must really hate Asians or something, but then it turns out that they're following orders 

[Rathma]

If there's anyone out there who still doesn't really get how the whole corruption thing works or how pervasive it is, Archlobbyist douchebag Jack Abramoff lays it out pretty well in this 60 Minutes segment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10#t=1m28s

Great find. This guy should use his skills to lobby for lobby reforms.

[Scheavo]

police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!

I think one of the most important aspects  that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.

[Chino]

police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!

I think one of the most important aspects  that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.

Some students looked like they were trying to take their batons, but it may have just been them trying not to get hit.

[Scheavo]

police aggression clip of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ#!

I think one of the most important aspects  that I saw, is that's no one fought back. Best way to fight the police is let them beat you up, get it on video (like this), and then use the obvious fact that you're not being violent to shove it right back up the police's asses.

Some students looked like they were trying to take their batons, but it may have just been them trying not to get hit.

Ya, I'd still consider that defense.

[Perpetual Change]

 

[Fiery Winds]

I need to see more of what happened before the police went swing happy.  Probably won't change my mind, but it may point to why the cops did what they did.