So what was that again @NetRunner?

We should just keep voting for Democrats until a new system is established?

Hooray for Democrats cause they support liberties!

"Almost all of these Mayors are Democrats"

Now I ain't sayin' she a gold digger...

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So what was that again @NetRunner?
We should just keep voting for Democrats until a new system is established?
Hooray for Democrats cause they support liberties!


What's your alternative? Refuse to vote? Vote Republican?

Is that going to magically fix everything?

Has Occupying parks actually fixed anything? Can it, if they refuse to translate their protests into electoral action?

Don't get me wrong, I like that they've gotten the media to talk about the real economic issues for a change, but I can already see that they're more than ready to move back to deficits. After all, we have the Super Committee report due here in a week or two...

Beyond that, what exactly is the game plan? Camp out in Zuccotti, refuse to engage with politicians or electoral politics, talk generically about inequality of wealth and the concentration of power it creates...and what? Do they think that's all they need to do to change the world?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
So what was that again @NetRunner?
We should just keep voting for Democrats until a new system is established?
Hooray for Democrats cause they support liberties!

What's your alternative? Refuse to vote? Vote Republican?
Is that going to magically fix everything?
Has Occupying parks actually fixed anything? Can it, if they refuse to translate their protests into electoral action?
Don't get me wrong, I like that they've gotten the media to talk about the real economic issues for a change, but I can already see that they're more than ready to move back to deficits. After all, we have the Super Committee report due here in a week or two...
Beyond that, what exactly is the game plan? Camp out in Zuccotti, refuse to engage with politicians or electoral politics, talk generically about inequality of wealth and the concentration of power it creates...and what? Do they think that's all they need to do to change the world?


So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems aren't helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.

I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

>> ^Truckchase:

So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.


Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.

As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

If you don't like Rep or Dem, then write someone in. If enough people did it, shit will change.

We need more people like Ventura, he's a little too conspiracy theorist for my taste but on everything else he's spot on and has demonstrated that Independents can win elections without taking corporate contributions.

We've seriously have to stop thinking of elections as a race/competition. The "first past the post" mentality has firmly taken hold where most people don't really support the candidate they vote for, they merely vote for the person they feel is the lesser of two evils. In addition, the human instinct to support the person who you think will win vs the person who you think most represents what should be done is hugely significant. People go out and vote for someone not because they support them, they vote because they don't want the other guy to win.

That's just not how elections should be. Founding fathers warned against parties. No one can seriously believe that all the issues of the day can be boiled down to two political ideologies. It's insulting and it's counter to the idea of critical thinking. Corporations have rigged the system so that no matter if you vote Dem or Rep, they still win. But the people ultimately hold more power than the Corporations. The question is: Are they going to use that power? So don't tell me you don't have any alternative.

We need to change the voting system people! Public Funding + Condorcet Voting System = Win for the 99%! I'm very happy to see people finally talking about the corporate oligarchy, but you guys are absolutely right that we need to see concrete plans to fix the system. Time to start educating people and get these issues on the ballots so that real change has a chance!

BTW it's not nearly as simple as End the Wars and Tax the Rich. We've got to be smart about it, or the whole of society will collapse. By electing rational, publicly interested representatives we can get people who are focused on our long term goals rather than quarterly profits (or yearly budgets for entitlement programs).

Plan A: Obama. FAILED
Plan B: Occupy movement. FAILING
Plan C: Vote Democrat. PENDING (outlook: grim)
Plan D: Star Chamber. PROPOSED
Plan E: Bloody revolution. INEVITABLE

Vote Independent... that's one way to kill the corrupt 2-party system.

The money needs to come out of politics and the legal system. Government and law needs to be much more dynamic and directly reflect the will of the people which changes over time. Look how much society has changed in just 80 years - perhaps some of the parameters of our system need changing in accordance with that to ensure a strong future.

Nowhere does it say that democracy/capitalism/whatever HAS to be perfect forever, yanno. Everything needs maintenance and i don't think we've "maintained our weapon, son." (spot the film reference)

Perfectly said, Cenk.

Look forward to seeing you on CurrantTV.

>> ^Fletch:

Plan A: Obama. FAILED
Plan B: Occupy movement. FAILING
Plan C: Vote Democrat. PENDING (outlook: grim)
Plan D: Star Chamber. PROPOSED
Plan E: Bloody revolution. INEVITABLE


I disagree that Occupy is Failing. If anything it's getting more and more press all the time. When it was shut down people took to the streets and it is causing a lot of fear in high places. It has to start somewhere and this is the start. If you don't believe me why don't you go back to 1962...when we were in Vietnam and the protests were non-existent.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.
As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The more likely and logical explanation is far simpler than Cunk's conspiracy theories. The answer is OWS was a leaderless, messageless, impotent movement that collapsed under a mixture of its own incompetence and the ridiculous (and often highly offensive) behavior of its denizens.

The Tea Party - by comparison - was and remains a group that pushes government to reduce its power, scope, influence, and budget. In 2010 they had a significant impact on the mid-term elections, and they may still have a big influence on 2012 (time will tell). And they did it without pooping on cars, raping people, killing themselves with drugs, or having to have cops fumigate them out of parks.

Lesson to OWS - if you want to accomplish something meaningful then act more like the Tea Party.

@Truckchase I know I'm a week late in replying, but I've been sick as a dog, as well as tied up in holiday activities.

I think you and I are in agreement. I think money in politics is a bad thing, and OWS is a really good thing. I'm not throwing rocks at the movement, I'm throwing rocks at liberals saying something along the lines of "I'm never voting Democratic again, #OWS4eva!" as if the protests have somehow made the concept of traditional political action irrelevant.

I do worry that Occupy ends up becoming a movement largely led by people who've totally given up on participating in the election process, and are holding out for some sort of Tahrir Square-style revolution.

Basically, I agree with what Matt Yglesias says here. Who wins elections matters, a lot. OWS is gonna need to back somebody (or better yet, many somebodies) in the 2012 election, or nothing they want to see happen will happen.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Truckchase I know I'm a week late in replying, but I've been sick as a dog, as well as tied up in holiday activities.
I think you and I are in agreement. I think money in politics is a bad thing, and OWS is a really good thing. I'm not throwing rocks at the movement, I'm throwing rocks at liberals saying something along the lines of "I'm never voting Democratic again, #OWS4eva!" as if the protests have somehow made the concept of traditional political action irrelevant.
I do worry that Occupy ends up becoming a movement largely led by people who've totally given up on participating in the election process, and are holding out for some sort of Tahrir Square-style revolution.
Basically, I agree with what Matt Yglesias says here. Who wins elections matters, a lot. OWS is gonna need to back somebody (or better yet, many somebodies) in the 2012 election, or nothing they want to see happen will happen.

Glad you're feeling better NR. I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.


Or to cut to the chase:

I think it's important (at least for now) that we silently support whoever we may view as the "lesser of two evils" while maintaining our hopefully long term momentum to overhaul the entire campaign finance system. #rootsrikers

>> ^Truckchase:

I know where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your logic, but I'm not gonna get out there and campaign for or vocally support Obama because I do think his administration is still heavily corrupted by (mainly) the financial industry. As you point out he's not nearly as bad as the repubs, so unless by some miracle Buddy Roemer gets any real traction I'll most likely be voting for Obama and running from the polling place in a ankle length trench coat and hat like a family man from 1974 escaping the newsstand with a smut rag.

Oy, Buddy Roemer? The problem with Buddy Roemer is that he seems to think his becoming President is the only/main way to fix the problem with money in politics. Never mind that the biggest problem with campaign finance law is that a) Republicans always oppose it and b) the Supreme Court has deemed real campaign finance law unconstitutional.

The answer to that is a Constitutional Amendment, not giving Buddy Roemer the potential ability to appoint SCOTUS judges, especially since he'd only get to replace liberals in a 2013-2017 term, not roadblocks like Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts.

I personally don't think silent support is good enough. I'm gonna be out campaigning for Obama nice and loud. I'm especially going to be pushing back against what I see as crazy misinformation, like the story Cenk is pushing here.

Once you strip away the misinformation, the only legitimate liberal complaints I've heard about Obama boil down to "he didn't do enough to make things better" as opposed to "he made something worse". People seem to have rather quickly forgotten the width and breadth of the damage done by Bush and a Republican congress.

Most people just remember the wars, the Patriot Act, and the tax cuts. Fewer people remember the US Attorneys scandal, fewer people remember the way he gutted the SEC, put the EPA on hold, sabotaged the FEC, tried to gut the FCC, turned the NLRB into a union-busting department, and so on. It was a nonstop deluge of sabotage, fraud, and abuse that just went on and on relentlessly for eight fucking years.

It grates me that it's only partially and often only temporarily being undone by Obama, but now those low-publicity nitty-gritty detail stories are almost universally good ones.

The choice isn't really one of a "lesser of two evils" it's a choice between empowering an enemy who's sworn to destroy everything you hold dear, or empowering a friend who's let you down. I see this as a choice between feckless and imperfect good, or pure, ruthless evil.