Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 545 Elected Officials in US Government

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 22, 2013, 5:59 p.m. EST by kimba (14)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Maybe this has been touched on before, maybe it's already been decided not to go this route, but I thought I would bring it up for discussion as it's a new year, and possibly new tactics are called for?

I think there are 545 elected US Officials in the US Government?

Is there any reason why Occupy should not become its own "party" - party being defined in what ever way that would suit the majority - and have one really great human being run for each of those seats in any of future elections? During the election process, Occupy/People's issues would have to be put into the mainstream media and become issues for discussion and debate.

Is there anything to stop someone from running as an Occupier for the Mayor of their town or city?

Wouldn't this be the best, non-violent way to move forward in changing our government, to work within the system?

195 Comments

195 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand.

http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/statement-of-autonomy/

Voter public control through the application of Free Democracy Affidavits http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ or FreeDA can be the solution to bringing about political accountability under conditions in which ballot initiatives, referendums, and recalls, are not an option. For the People to be free, politicians must be legally bound to serving the specific interests of the People rather than the interests of the corporations. By refusing to vote for any candidate who doesn't sign an affidavit legally committing that candidate to supporting the Free Democracy Amendments, voters will be able to exercise their democratic power to hold the candidates who do sign and are elected, legally accountable. However, VOTERS MUST REMAIN UNITED ACROSS PARTY LINES IN THEIR AGREEMENT ON THE AFFIDAVITS AND IN THEIR REFUSAL TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES WHO WON'T SIGN THE AFFIDAVITS. This non-partisan unity is essential to the success of bringing about permanent political reform, taking freedom into our own hands.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

Leader-less? How is American politics going to be transformed into competing leader-less parties? What kind of organization is that? Americans have had leaders for over 2 centuries!

[-] 0 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'm thinking about a system without political parties. No elections, but evaluations instead. This system can be a truer democracy and has no use for congressmen or even a president.

I'm looking forward to rectifying false conclusions anyone might jump to (which I totally expect, as this idea is pretty far out). A prerequisite is a free, open mind, of course!

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I like that idea. The office of president is just a scapegoat puppet position anyway. He is still guilty and responsible for everything terrible he does, but it functions as more of a distraction to keep us divided.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

If you're interested, you can read and comment here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dgrc-manifestation-of-departmental-governance/

I've only done a fraction of Departmental Governance (DG) so far, mostly because we won't be ready for it for a while. Steps need to be taken first, specifically the rise of the 99% Conglomerate.

This special corporation, destined to devour capitalism and die with it, is necessary to convince 99% of the population that THEY are the 99%.

That's the problem... political parties and elections are tools for population control, keeping people separated, unable to unite. The Conglomerate can eventually turn all entrepreneurs, employees and consumers into supporters of the movement.

Follow the link above and scroll down to get back to Topic References. With the Topic References in one place, I can bounce around editing while keeping organized. You'll find there's already a lot to read about there, but maybe start with the Conglomerate. I look forward to your criticism and maybe even participation.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

Hmmm. Elections are useful in making choices - yea or nay. Perhaps more elections would better. Weekly elections might be the extreme case. In NYC the City Council voted to give itself and the Mayor an opportunity to run for a third term. This was illegal. The City Council changed the law to allow it.

Regret over Mayor Bloomberg Third Term

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/nyregion/majority-regrets-3rd-term-for-bloomberg-poll-finds.html?_r=0

Would it be better if weekly elections could remove the Mayor and City Council as a rapid recall mechanism available every week?

I think Mayor's salary is $1. Mr. Bloomberg is probaably worth more than $20 billion.

Net Worth 2012 Michael Bloomberg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

Give control of politics back to the people.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Maybe there is a better way to decide who is in power and for what duration. Why does there need to be a fixed duration?

In Departmental Governance (DG), leaders only last as long as the criteria they're Evaluated on ranks higher than the next most viable contender.

DG Evals occur frequently and consistantly, with real time results online.

If you are in a Department's constituency, you can evaluate its Leadership on local, regional and national levels.

Your participation in and influence on government is determined by your interest, motivation and character. Regardless of your position in your department, you can have a meaningful role. More on this when I have time to describe decision-making in Legislative Court, decided rules to date, and how the different actors/participants/stakeholders interact.

Leaders are known and watched closely by their Constituency. Too many false moves and Evals will reflect it. The Departmental Constituency simply comes to a conclusion, in practically no time, to replace a leader, and the next best contender is ready to lead.

If you're wondering exactly what it is DG Leaders do, I can link you to a list.

What do you think of DG so far? Have you browsed the Topic References post yet?

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Where is American politics being transformed into competing leader-less parties proposed?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/545-elected-officials-in-us-government/#comment-917473

"Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. "

Is OWS a people's movement with or without direction?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Perhaps you could point out what the statement cited has to do with American politics being transformed into competing leader-less parties.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

The word "leader" does not appear in the template.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/

"politicians must be legally bound to serving the specific interests of the People rather than the general interests of the corporations"

Each specific interest will overwhelm the People in a global society.

Let's say science and technology have made it possible for mankind to peer into the solar system and find rogue asteroids and comets that could collide with Earth. Shall the People direct their government on what specific course of action to take?

Suppose the People are uninformed or misinformed about the issue(s) such as the 9-11 Terrorists Attacks, or Iraq War or Global Warming or Outsourcing they make uninformed and misinformed decisions whose impact may not be realized until years later.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago
  1. What does anything in the FreeDA template have to do with any statement made by Occupy???

  2. What global society?

  3. What does people being united across party lines for the purpose of instituting constitutional amendments have to do with decisions to be made by the Executive branch?

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

The USA is being overrun by immigrants (the global society). What holds a nation together? Is it language and culture or economics (jobs & WS)? At one time, a critical time, it was language and culture. Large regions of the nation are transforming into bilingual and multilingual regions in a single generation! Twelve to thirty million illegal aliens cannot be assimilated by our metropolitan areas, Economics is the obvious global attraction changing the national demographic by an alienation of traditional values and living standards.

This uncontrolled globalization has preempted the political discourse on national sovereignty, the economy, standard of living and education. Silly stuff such as immigration reform has drowned out the demands by the people for a real investigtion into the 9-11-01 attacks.

The politicians are maneuvering for 2014 elections and will toss the rule of law out the door to win a majority of votes cast by the population of immigrant voters.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Good point. I totally understand why The Movement needs to keep itself from being labeled, branded and restricted by unnecessary and self-defeating limitations. There is great strength in that aspect of it and I do believe that for the most part it should remain an Unbound, Free-Flowing, Ever-Evolving Movement, Full of Socratic Energy and a Hunger for Social Justice that cannot be contained or restrained into a specific box. But I don't see any reason why it can't still be That and at the same time organize part of that Energy into a political party and to become directly involved in the political arena to fight for our common ideals for social change. The banksters and the corporations may be the ones pulling the strings, but it's the puppet-politicians on the end of those strings who actually have the power to make the laws and to impliment the actual policies that dramatically effect our lives and steer the direction of the country in one way or the other, for the better or for the worse. As of right now it's for the worse and we can either let them continue to do that or we can organize and take over the controls.

[-] -1 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

Imagine someone has to be elected to fill one of the 545 seats. This Congressman may be told how to vote on everything by the (majority of) constituents and so would be unable to vote according to conscience. Should that be better than what we have now?

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement." "...by the people and for the people."

And The Republic of The United States is supposed to be a People's Government, By The People and For The People. I don't see any good reason at all why we should stay out of it, why we shouldn't create our own People-Oriented party to fight back against the corruption. Its almost like there has been an agenda within the Movement all of this time to keep us from doing that.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Well it is what it is. When I first came here, it was in promotion of creating the American Liberty True Democracy Party but it soon became evident to me that Occupy isn't about political affiliation, even with itself. So, over time, I began to focus on an approach that could transcend party affiliations, not just for Occupy, but for everyone.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-organization-rather-than-political-party/

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

LeoYo, just out of curiosity, do you even live in The United States of America?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

As a general rule, I never divulge information about myself in a public forum although in the midst of conversation, I might let something slip out.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Okay, I was only asking because I don't really like the idea of a non-American trying to discourage us Americans from organizing and becoming much more involved in our political system.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

This is yet another opportunity for me to convince people that the 99% Conglomerate is necessary.

The biggest problem we face when attempting to elect Occupiers is that the majority of citizens don't even know what side they are on. Second, is that MSM is controlling the population. Another is that voting is a scam.

The Conglomerate is an idea to transfer wealth and power to the people while uniting 99% of the population (not just people interested in the movement).

Eventually the Conglomerate can replace other corporations as the "primary influencer of government". It wouldn't end there, as we would have the power to peacefully transform our governing systems. Anything can be possible.

I don't think I've linked you to it before, but are you interested? There is so much more to know and develop. I could definitely use help, or just opinions/feedback good or bad.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the question is not how do we get someone in power. People who want power are mediocre at best and generally venal. The question is how do we make the power afraid of us so they no longer exploit and destroy.

Massive levels of civil disobedience. Just like MLK and those in the civil rights movement. MLK never achieved political power or elected office, and look how much they accomplished.

The Green Party has been turned into a pariah by the system and no one votes for them. I support them, I'm just saying it's not our best route. Massive levels of civil disobedience is our only option left.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

"Massive levels of civil disobedience is our only option left." Unfortunately, I agree with you. To get the critical mass of people we need to enlighten, and embolden, we need to educate the people, make them understand that this is our last hope, and convince them that in unity, there is strength.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Amen.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

The Green Party may not be our "best" route, per say, but it was already an organized party platform that would have been a whole-Hell-of-a-lot-better than re-electing Obomber and standing by and watching him continue the horrible policies of the Bush administration for another 4 years. "Massive levels of civil disobedience is our only option left" -that's bullshit, we are only limited by the restrictions we place upon ourselves. "Free your Mind."

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I keep trying, but it's not working. I never said stop supporting legit people. Definitely keep doing that. I'm just saying we need to do more than that. We need massive levels of civil disobedience and follow the paths of all successful movements. Civil rights, women's suffrage etc. -this is something I need to do more in as well.

My district just elected Mr. Transcanada. Now we need to stop the pipeline and it can't be done through voting anymore, it's too late, and that is the case with most issues. Civil disobedience is all we have left. It must be used to out the corrupt and push new ideals.

[-] 9 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I think it's also important for Occupy supporters to reject as much of the current corrupt systems as possible and to persuade others to do so as well. Things that have been discussed periodically on here such as rejection of MSM including movies and music, boycotts of dangerous and anti-worker corporations, recycling, buying local to support mom-and-pops, buying used instead of new when possible. Go green. Lower your carbon footprint. Stop being mindless uber-consumers. FUCK iPhone 6! There's a long list of things we can do as individuals to show we are no longer willing to be slaves to their game.

[-] 5 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

RESISTANCE....RESISTANCE...RESISTANCE to the people who perpetuate this corrupt system. Keep searching for ways to screw the corrupt system, and implement as many of them as you can.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I am working at that: "Keep searching for ways to screw the corrupt system, and implement..."

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Exactly, "Keep searching for ways to screw the corrupt system, and implement..." See my reply to gnomunny above. I encourage you to put up a thread on that, and if you do, I promise to comment on it, and apply pressure ;-) lol... on some of my friends here to comment too.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Its posted... Look for "Keep searching for ways to screw the corrupt system, and implement..."

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Good job. I'll get on it when I get back in an hour or so, maybe sooner.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Hey Odin. Absolutely true. There's a long list of viable ideas that anyone can do, especially if they're willing to make some small sacrifices in some cases, like paying a little more at a mom and pop than you would at the 'big box' store. Or waiting to see the latest 'blockbuster' until it comes out on video or cable rather than shell out fifty bucks to take the wife and kids to see it the first night it shows up at the Bijou.

I've also noticed that in the never-ending quest to maximize profits by constantly lowering production costs, what appears to be a bargain, in reality, often no longer is. Case in point: my nephew went to the smoke shop recently to buy a pack of cigarettes and picked up a lighter that cost, I think, about 50 cents instead of shelling out two bucks for a Bic. I don't smoke cigarettes but I think you can probably get a good two months out of a Bic lighter depending on how much you smoke and a couple other factors (like trying to light up when the wind is blowing). I'm positive you can get many weeks out of one at any rate. On the second day of using his "bargain" lighter the button broke rendering it absolutely useless. The second fucking day! Do that math! If you paid a dollar fifty for a Bic lighter and it lasts you a month, it cost you a nickle a day to light up. That bargain lighter, at one third the price, actually costs five times as much to light your 'stogies.' This is the true reality of our modern-day 'maximize profits, quality be damned' world.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Hey kid. I liked your analogy about the lighters, and unfortunately I could relate to it well, as I still do have a little cigar habit (bad on me). I think putting up a thread on the different ways we can show resistance to the corrupt staus quo in our everyday lives is a good idea. Although I do think it may have already been done, its been a while, and it's good to refresh our memories, and/or reinforce each others efforts. There may have been some of us here who have missed it too. In any event it's a bit hypocritical if you don't walk the talk.

We should also combine that with the different ways that we are reaching out to others, as educating people to what Occupy is about is paramount to our success. Many people know things are fucked up, but do not understand why, or they feel powerless in their ability to change anything. Gaining the knowledge that we all have a common oppressor in our plights is important, and that is basically a bought and sold for government that works in complicity with corporate, and big banking interests to put thier welfare ahead of the people's interests....well that will give us the chance to build a unified resistance, and hopefully embolden people to demand a sea change in the way our political and financial institutions are run.

It is only when people realize that by doing nothing.... this will only get worse, and that short term discomfort, and yes possible harm if they are involved in direct actions... outweighs the inevitable long term pain that not only we will suffer, but our children as well...only then will people feel emboldened to demand change. Courage begets courage, and power begets power.

I remember that you liked the idea of stamping dollars with the message NOT TO BE USED FOR BRIBING POLITICIANS...amend the constitution. Anyway I have that web site where you can get that stamp if you want...and I do not think it is profit driven. Send me a pm, and I'll give it to you.

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Reject the system is what this thing was founded on.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yep, and it never ceases to amaze me that some of our regulars and semi-regulars just never seem to grasp that.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3328) 1 year ago

Yes..YES!! I agree with Trevor, Odin and you. I do wish though that it could be done via global non-compliance. Turning our backs on the system is the way to go...instead of demanding changes from 'them'. "They" will never help us. Your examples above are great! We should think of things that would globally stop them dead in their tracks too. BIG things that they cannot ignore...like globally stop using their banks and globally stop paying our taxes to 'them'. We need to set up our own system...a "People's Society" and make sure that tax money is indeed going to where it is supposed to go. Not the military industrial complex. I know that Gandhi was a big proponent of 'Tax Refusal'. It HAS to be big, or they won't do a darn thing. One thing that I don't understand with the masses is...Why are we still paying the government/oligarchs? We are paying them, and they use the money...OUR MONEY...to abuse us. Is that not a definition of insanity?

"Tax Refusal" though is a massive undertaking. And it absolutely has to be done en masse. Not individually. Individuals will just end up in a heap of trouble going it alone. I sure do wish that Occupy would take up this endeavor. The other issues are great of course, but it seems to me that an organized global 'Tax Refusal' would get the oligarchs to sit up and take notice... real quick .

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yes, there's a long list of effective tactics that can, and in some cases MUST be implemented. The tax issue, like you say is powerful but absolutely must be done en masse, so that one's on the back burner for now. The tax man scares the hell out of most people. What's important still is getting the messages out and gathering supporters. That's our biggest obstacle right now but once that's achieved the tactics we implement will have a real snowball effect. As the real OWS members of this forum know, the only two things TPTB understand, or really care about, are their power and their money, often intertwined of course. So that's where the focuses should be; start taking away their power and taking away their revenue streams.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Excellent strategy. We should spread the tactic to every Occupy! Stop paying taxes.! That WILL get their attention, and succeed. Some of us will go to jail but I'm willing to give up this artificial freedom.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3328) 1 year ago

"Tax Refusal" has to be done en masse. If done en masse, it is very unlikely that anyone would go to jail. What are they going to do...jail us all? They would have no choice but to reckon with us. No-one should go it alone with this method. But I agree with Gandhi on this one. 'Tax Refusal' is the single best strategy to stop the oligarchs dead in their tracks. Turning our backs on the banks is also a good strategy, not using them for anything, that is.

The global organization of this method of safe non-compliance of 'Tax Refusal' should be paramount right NOW. Up front and center. It is by far the quickest & safest way, as the public going into the streets will amount in bloodshed to be sure. No-one needs to get hurt...or lose their life in this revolution.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I certainly agree in non violence. I do think we will need to be jailed. It may be necessary to get msm attention, and publicity which in turn would grow the action. It is only when the massive numbers occur that jailing us all becomes impractical. I'm willing to be jailed. Others are also. Perhaps that will be enough to get the ball rolling.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Do you think the new Steve Jobs movie will have a scene with Chinese slave labor and suicide prevention nets?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I absolutely love well-placed sarcasm, TM. ;-) Great one!

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Very true and important. Are you open to discussing a "bold stroke" political tactic as well?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Although I have little faith in political solutions at the present time, at least until we (meaning OWS supporters) achieve some sort of critical mass, I'm always open to other people's ideas and opinions. And I am curious about what you mean by "bold stroke," so definitely elaborate. I'll tell you what I think.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

What do you know about the "consent of the governed" in reference to constitutional self-governance?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Basically nothing, so feel free to explain it and I'll give you my feedback. If I don't answer tonight it's because I have to log off in a couple minutes. Also, I apologize for taking so long in responding but was involved in something else for the last hour or so.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

No worries, I was already asleep...

Wikipedia: Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration.

NOTE: IMO, this definition might be more accurate if the the words "a binding" were inserted immediately prior to "approval or agreement": "Consent refers to the provision of a binding approval or agreement..."

Long story short, consent is the ability of a person to make a substantive and binding choice, without coercion. Or, in other words, consent is the willingness of a person to agree to a proposition. On the other hand, withdrawal of consent (dissent) is the ability of a person disagree with a proposition. With regards to the same proposition, there can be no meaningful consent absent the ability to dissent.

Not the best definition perhaps, but it'll get us started... How does it seem to you?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I've read thru your comments on this thread. You make a lot of sense. And it seems you have a keen understanding that this government no longer represents the will of the people. Also that the people themselves have forgotten (a lot of them have never actually known) what the politic process is all about. Nowadays Americans go about their everyday lives 364 days a year. One day a year they dutifully go to the polls, vote for Person A or Person B and the next day go about their lives again. That's the extent of involvement almost all Americans put into the system. In fact, it's not even one full day they put in. More like one hour a year. This is why we've lost our power and this has to change.

But like I say, politics isn't my forte so apologies beforehand if I don't get into an involved discussion about it. I prefer to leave the political angles to those on this forum that have more faith in working within the system. At least, like I say, until OWS has achieved a critical mass in regards to numbers. When the American faction of OWS becomes a "million member army," I'm more than willing to jump in and attack the system from within.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Thank you for your kind words.

If you see this in the future, please give it fair consideration. Then vote.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

I might support a no consent effort if it was accompanied with an anti vote suppression campaign, and a serious effort to get ALL eligible voters to the polls. How do you feel about that.?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

From what I've observed, most people who do not vote (and this at times included myself) think there is little to no actual choice between the candidates most likely to win (read that as backed by big money).

This is designed to give those folks a real choice (as well as every other voter too), other than Teedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. I would very much like to see these voters return to the polls and support all independent and non-partisan voter registration efforts.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

I think we should support ALL voter registration efforts even the hated (IMHO) right. I think we should also fight all vote suppression efforts. I agree that most non voters see no hope and a no concent effort could appeal to them. I also think those non voters have been identified as left leaning/low income voters as well. So that would benefit the progressive goals of Occupy. If the effort to fight vote suppression (which you failed to mention), & to get ALL eligible voters registered were part of your plan I could support it.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

My apologies for not mentioning your each and every concern... Of course I oppose voter suppression; the only reason I do not support party and partisan efforts at voter registration is that it perpetuates their con as the only political choice on all Americans. I note you dislike the political right, that's fine; there is a significant segment of the wealthy political right that I consider our most dangerous (from a Constitutional perspective) adversary. But the oligarch and plutocrat class includes democrats and well as republicans. Otherwise I care not if you describe yourself as right/left, conservative/liberal...

As important as voter registration is voter education, specifically Constitutional and electoral realities. The oligarchs and plutocrats understand these realities and use them against us. (Ask about "tyranny of the 501c3" sometime.) Consent of the governed in their constitutional self-governance is not a plan, but the Constitutional reality upon which this American experiment in self-governance is based, with practical implications in our current political circumstances.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

regardless of party affiliation we must get money out of politics and take our govt back from the oligarchs

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I see what you mean and agree "We need massive levels of civil disobedience and follow the paths of all successful movements. Civil rights, women's suffrage etc." I only keep talking about the political aspect here because I'm afraid we're gonna end up with the same fucked up scenereo next upcoming election. Example: kimba actually likes what Obama is doing, she supports him and will actually consider voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (if she runs). I'm predicting Hillary will be Obombers replacement.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Without massive levels of civil disobedience - We will end up with "the same fucked up scenario next upcoming election"

"the question is not how do we get someone in power. People who want power are mediocre at best and generally venal. The question is how do we make the power afraid of us so they no longer want to exploit and destroy."

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I keep repeating this, the WHOLE IDEA behind the original question was about the abstract idea of civil disobedience of replacing all 545 elected officials in one fell swoop, and changing the system from within.

I also said, somewhere in here, that if Occupy is about The 99%, that 99% runs the gamut of political views. If Occupy is about only your political agenda, then Occupy is not about The 99% at all, it's about you.

So which is it?

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

lol you think you can give me a two choice ultimatum and expect me to fall for it? lol I'm not that stupid okay? Everything doesn't always have to be limited to your two choice "either or" (choose A or B) mentality all of the time. Get Fucking Real.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Wow, you are really in your own head.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

“Despite the fact that “it was Barack Obama who began the current austerity offensive in the weeks before delivering his first inaugural address,” the president was allowed to pose as a champion of the social safety net. Having redefined war, he once again claims to be a peacemaker. “By cheering the inaugural speech, progressives are only encouraging Obama’s gaming and mendacity.”

Like an abusive spouse who preys on the emotional desperation and dependency of his domestic victim, Barack Obama knows that all he need do is offer some cheap street corner flowers and a few sweet words, and the previous nights and months and years of beatings will be forgiven. Just hum a bar or two of an old, shared song, and the battered partner will supply a full symphony of Barry White’s Love Unlimited Orchestra – because she needs to hear it, if only inside her own head. (...)” [Excerpt] Obama and What Passes for the Left By Glen Ford http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-and-what-passes-for-the-left/

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This guy is a bully. Don't let him get to you.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

We are all individuals with our own unique thoughts and ideas. People act in self interest for the most part, but that doesnt mean there cannot be consensus on big things. Its why decentralization is so important. Allow people to make their own ideas and create their own group solutions.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Civil disobedience is great. I love civil disobedience on a grand scale. But it's manipulative.

What do I mean by that? If we elect people who have the right thoughts and values we don't have to worry so much about hidden agendas.

If we have to force a currently elected official to come to the people's terms, they may go there for a moment, because there is something in it for them.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

It's not about putting someone in power. Power is a word that has no place in a political structure that is for and by the people.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Don't think of it as "power" in that way then, think of it as having access to the controls that can create laws and impliment policies that benefit The 99%.

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I knew what you meant, but by using the word you are giving it its own power. That sounds confusing because of the word we are talking about.

We don't want people in power. We want people who are leaders.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I see your point there, but "leaders" can also "lead" in a good or bad direction.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Yes, this is true. But true leaders are not power hungry. And there's a big difference there.

It's not fatal if a leader leads in a so-called-not-in-our-best-interest direction, because a good leader will course correct when they see a better alternative.

A good leader can also rise above and see the big picture, something every one can do if they have the information, but that not every person cares to do. When decisions are made with the big picture in mind, sometimes it will appear as if things have gone off the rails when they really haven't.

In either case, I think, a leader is much more desirable than someone who wants to be in power.

[-] -1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I think it's not that they've been turned into a pariah - it's that, as far as I've seen and can tell - they've put angry people up for election. It doesn't seem like they are choosing the best human beings they can to fill the positions.

Now, of course, everyone is angry. But in our society, at least at this time, outward appearances matter. If the Green party nominated people who were even-keeled, they may seem more electable? That is an observation and a question.

There are lessons to be learned from Green Party.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

they are not a pariah. But the 2 party system views them that way. You'll see a lot of democrats accuse them of working for republicans, and you'll see republicans call them liberal wackjobs. Neither of which are true. That is what I'm talking about.

Angry people? Have you ever seen Jill Stein speak? She's like the nicest lady ever. She also acts on her words.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Agreed. I think she was the best choice. Yet she received only less than 1% of the vote. That is Sad. And it says something seriously disturbing about the political situation in this country.

[-] -1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I was thinking of her VP. Jill is a little too soft spoken for my political taste.

Ralph Nadar is very angry. There was a time in my life that I thought he did well for the world, when he was a consumer advocate, but as a political candidate? No. I would not ever vote for him.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

.......judge our politicians on how nice they seem on tv... no wonder the legislation is fucked up.

I want them to take on the corporate take over, not pat me on the head and tell me everything is just fine.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

For Real.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Who do I want in government?

Real people. Not overly nice people. Not overly angry people. Not manipulators. Not passive aggressives. Not bullies.

It's not about being nice. It's about being real and balanced. I would not trust an angry elected official to put his anger aside and look at the big picture.

I actually love my current Representative in Washington - Barbara Lee. I have even more respect for Hillary after this morning.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Liberal, War-Hawk. Yet I suspect you will be voting for her in 2016?

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

It depends on who else is running. It's why I presented this question to the people of Occupy.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

my god you're actually considering it lol wow...is all i can say

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

Your post was going well until you said that you "love" Barbara Lee. She's an idiot . Hillary is a liar. So, you love and respect idiots and liars.

[-] 2 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Barbara Lee was the lone dissenter of the Patriot Act and for that I will always respect her.

I like Obama as well. I think if he had not been in office and was still a professor or grass roots community organizer, he may have been a participant in OWS.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

You like Obama as well? When Bush Did What Obama's Doing, Were You Mad? (FLYER) http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

obama was never a professor, he was a visiting lecturer, who had to surrender his law license. Lawyers don't do that unless the law is a comin knockin.

[+] -4 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

Factcheck is a left wing site. Both obama and his wife surrendered their licenses, No lawyer does that unless it's going to be taken from them.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Listen up, there are at least 100 things that you can bash Obama for that are at least factual. There is no need for you to lie unless you are just dead set on being a douche bag.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There you go - Nail + Hammer - dead center on the head.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23295) from Coon Rapids, MN 0 minutes ago Nice of you urging it to pull it's head out - but I fear too late - as it is likely surgically attached by now. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

It's like attack of the stupid zombie twits.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - Screenplay & music taken from attack of the killer tomatoes?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

One would think that with enough information out there that some people would just move on.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ah this auar-gent is not people. People - stinken thinken or not - would move on.

[+] -6 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

I am not lying. Obama and his wife are criminals, that's why they had to surrender their law licenses . It was that or criminal proceedings against them.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You are just a dumb little doody head that cannot separate fact from fiction.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It's theme song = as the douche goes on ( to the tune of Sonny & Cher - the beat goes on )

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

I had no idea that Soros employed child laborers. So what are you? 9? 10? 12? years old?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 1 points by auargent (-1) 2 minutes ago The truth is that both the Obamas had to surrender their law licenses or face criminal prosecution. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Ssshhhh. The adults are talking now.

[-] 0 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

AND, you're not one of them.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

lol - yeah - what - is this guy 2 or something?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

[-] 0 points by auargent (0) 0 minutes ago I had no idea that Soros employed child laborers. So what are you? 9? 10? 12? years old? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


You are quite useless all around. You have no idea how stupid you look. You just repeat lies that you have heard and that makes you an ignorant jack ass---a little bobble head type. Pull your head out of your ass.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nice of you urging it to pull it's head out - but I fear too late - as it is likely surgically attached by now.

You are such a sweetheart <3 <3 <3.

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

The truth is that both the Obamas had to surrender their law licenses or face criminal prosecution.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Lame excuse. Don't get angry? and don't stand up against the establishment? to improve your electability? You don't even make sense.

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I didn't say don't get angry, but I won't vote for someone who seems to be making decisions out of their own personal anger for what has happened in the past. I would rather vote for someone who has a positive attitude about where we are going moving forward.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"moving forward"..okay I understand who I'm dealing with now..another Obama cheerleader defending the status quo in the name of Occupy. just what we needed :-)

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Actually, the picture you have drawn of me via your comments and judgments regarding my character are so far off the mark ...

This country is so far behind where it could be, ie: not living up to its potential, that if it doesn't start moving forward, it is going to wither and die and not in a way that anyone would care to live through. I'm a moving forward person, I hate sitting still, except for the purpose of contemplation, and I hate stagnation.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Neo-Liberalism has nothing to do with moving forward. It's part of the corporate-owned Power Structure.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

[-]1 points by kimba (11) 2 days ago

Well, I started this post as a way of testing the waters, to see what other people are thinking, and to get an idea if it would be supported.

So in answer to your question, nothing!

My personal problem with it though is that I go back and forth between seeing the governments as something that can be repaired to an ideal state of being, or as something that should be replaced entirely with individual sovereignty. I get the feeling that something is changing (like a program running in the background) and I think whether the government is repaired or replaced will be decided for us, and then we'll have to work with whatever system is there to work with.

↥twinkle↧stinklepermalink

.

Well, whether you're satisfied with just testing the waters or endeavor to take it further, I encourage your efforts.

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Thank you!

I encourage everyone :)

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There is no Right Answer. There are many third parties already. But who can unite people in a single, strong Third Party.

Who are the people that can help you strategize a political party? Why should a party called OWS Party get support from others that have been building support under their own parties. At the same time you have to ask why the Green party might not be better. And why wouldn't the Constitution party be better. And the principals of the party might be the most important. If OWS can adopt a strong, firm constitution platform... Then maybe on the National Level OWS would take over the Constitution Party and the whole ticket. Obviously that wouldn't work if OWS Values are just too different. And they might be too different. I'd say if would be a good exercise for OWS to go through the process and look to see if the Constitution was the base value for OWS. Could be that yes the principals were good, but the Constituion party was always going to have bad connotations and people that were unacceptable. That is fine.

Exercises are good. Rundowns are good. Throwout the other Third Parties, but go and look at the Constitution and look for principals.

I don't think the OWS Party is ready to accept the principals of the US Constitution today. But ... it helps to have older documents to hold as the Prinicpals.

But, I have no Idea what is going on in OWS... So I can forget this now.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I believe all levels of government have differing requirements for running for office. There are dozens of political parties.
People like Bernie Sanders run as independent - with no party affiliation.


All of us have to make a decision-
do we support a particular party or person to support OWS goals
do we ignore our existing political system to support OWS goals
do we push the system - from the inside - to support OWS goals


the key to my decision is not what will make me feel the most "OWS" or the most revolutionary
the key to my decision is WHAT CAN & WILL SUCCEED

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Succeeding at OWS goals makes me feel the most OWS and Revolutionary. Good Morning bensdad :-)

So what do you think we should plan for 2016? --- should we move to amend the Constitution to re-re-elect Obama for a 3rd term? Or should we vote for Hillary Clinton? Because as you already well know, 3rd party votes are just "wasted" votes that "steal" votes away from "the good guy democrats", which causes "the bad guy republicans" to win, right? :-)

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

2016 is a long way off. If Occupy can grow and continue as it is (uninvolved with direct politics) we will continue to have an affect on politics by continuing to move the country away from anti 99% agenda and towards pro 99% solutions. I think now (in terms of politics) we can address real threats to the 99% by supporting groups that might allow 3rd party fair access. movetoamend,org, bensdads Occupy efforts as well. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/, opendebates.org, as well as challenging the continued efforts to suppress votes, and the dishonest gerrymandering of districts to exclude one party. Finally any politician from any party that does not support pro 99% solutions should of course by retired.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

NYC OWS version of movetoamend:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I've been to the site. It has lots of excellent, valuable information. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"If Occupy can grow and continue as it is (uninvolved with direct politics) we will continue to have an affect on politics..."

FACEPALM lol

bensdad blames Nader voters for the Bush election, I tend to Not take people like that seriously, but I'll take a look at his efforts, perhaps he is not completely Delusional :-)

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Is the rude "facepalm" because you are against Occupy growing? Not likely, Is it because you disagree we have and can affect politics? Maybe. You reprinted my comment but neglected to include any intelligent disagreement. I will avoid discussing your personal problems/attacks on Bensdad who is a dedicated Occupier actually working on overturning CU and getting corporate money out of politics (an actual Occupy goal). Are you against the hard work occupy is engaged in to get money out of politics?

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I'm more in favor of Occupy than you can possibly imagine. The facepalm was because of how illogical that sounded...that if we continue to stay uninvolved with politics we will continue to have an effect on politics..it just sounded funny thats all.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Somethings aren't easily understood, no harm done. I am suggesting that we have influenced the whole country during this last election cycle. by making it popular to discuss economic inequity, by speaking boldly about the 1% bankster criminals, by denouncing austerity, and demanding progressive tax cuts. In many other ways we moved the population and as a result anti 99% extremists were defeated, and many pro 99%/OWS candidates elected. (according to various progressive groups). We did not get involved directly in any campaigns, but had an affect. If we grow, and maintain/increase our efforts/visibility we WILL affect the next election as well. Does that explain it better? Do you still think it deserves a rude gesture? You don't have to agree, I'm just asking if my opinion deserves the disrespect you exhibited.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Yes it does help explain better, however I believe that we could be having a much more postive effect by getting directly involved. I just replied to someone in an above post concerning this particular point, hope this helps to explain better my point of view:

"Leader-less? How is American politics going to be transformed into competing leader-less parties? What kind of organization is that? Americans have had leaders for over 2 centuries!" -DouglesAdams

Good point. I totally understand why The Movement needs to keep itself from being labeled, branded and restricted by unnecessary and self-defeating limitations. There is great strength in that aspect of it and I do believe that for the most part it should remain an Unbound, Free-Flowing, Ever-Evolving Movement, Full of Socratic Energy and a Hunger for Social Justice that cannot be contained or restrained into a specific box. But I don't see any reason why it can't still be That and at the same time organize part of that Energy into a political party and to become directly involved in the political arena to fight for our common ideals for social change. The banksters and the corporations may be the ones pulling the strings, but it's the puppet-politicians on the end of those strings who actually have the power to make the laws and to impliment the actual policies that dramatically effect our lives and steer the direction of the country in one way or the other, for the better or for the worse. As of right now it's for the worse and we can either let them continue to do that or we can organize and take over the controls.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I would love to see us "take over the controls"! Unfortunately, the system has embedded in it rules that exclude, marginalize, andrender useless all 3rd party access. So I support the notion to "take over the controls" by creating a party, but only ifwe focus on changing the rules that prevent 3rd party access. movetoamend, nationalpopularvote.com, opendebates, election day holidays, and other changes must occur. So I support those efforts so that we can break the grip of the corp owned duopoly. At the same time I support protesting in the street for change that improves the lives of the 99%. As we continue that effort, we influence the whole country and push the existing (corrupt) system a little closer to our goals. It IS happening, and will continue to especially ifwe grow. So I agree with you! Take over! Yes. And I support pressuring, & agitating the current system as well.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Do you realize that The Green Party only needed 5% of the vote? to receive major gov. funding? to become an offically recognized party? and to be allowed into all future debates? That would have been a major victory against the corp owned duopoly.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

i do indeed realize that. I voted 3rd party for the same reason. But ALL 3rd parties didn't get 2% combined. The rules MUST change. Ranting and insulting everyone is counter productive.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Why the hell are you arguing with me if you voted 3rd party? lol The rules did not need to change to win 5% of the vote. Its the Dangerously Retarded 2-party duopoly mentality that needs to change.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"arguing with you"? You are blaming the voters, when it is the rules that are the problem. If the rules were changed a 3rd party could win 20% easy and be in striking distance. 5% is no real goal. Nothing will change if we don't stop raging at the moon, insulting our fellow citizens, and ignoring the real problems. the unfair rules set up by the duopoly to limit access of 3rd parties.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

While I do think that calling people sheep can have some bad effects, the vast majority of Americans are so fluffed up about themselves fromt he MSM and their bullshit "America speaks" and "land of the free" and "Americas Choice 2012" nonsense, that I do think a bit of asking them "what the fuck are you clowns doing?!!" is good.

I mean, this past election, along with all the other ones, is absolute insanity. We just put all the same criminals in all the same positions, and nothing new came about anything. Nothing.

Thats just pathetic.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Pathetic is a good word. The peoples government is still controlled by the corporate 1% plutocrats. We share that opinion. That state of affairs justifies the outrage that leads to abusive insulting tactics, You and all of us are entitled to use whatever tactics you choose, As I am allowed to say the tactic may be justified but counter productive. Of course nothing changed in the last election, the rules haven't changed. So let's focus our energies on growing support for rule changes that will give 3rd parties equal access.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Well said. Preach it brother! And Amen. God help us all :-)

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Indeed. Getting 3rd parties on TV debates would dramatically change things. That being said, if the sheep wont vote for those that arent on TV, because they wont put the time into the research, then KP has a point with the voters being the problem.

It is the people, after all, that accept those rules. And the rules arent going to just magically change. The people's will HAS to come first.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah the people must be convinced to exercise their will to CHANGE THE RULES. Calling the people retarded, or sheep, or ignorant does not get us closer to a solution, it simply alienates the very people we need to get 3rd parties elected, and of course those who utilize such childish tactics are just rendered bullies. Good way to exclude most people when we should be aiming for inclusion....man! ;)

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

The rules did not need to change to win 5% of the vote. The Green Party only needed 5% of the vote to receive major gov. funding to become an offically recognized party and to be allowed into all future debates. That would have been a major victory against the corp owned duopoly.You say you realize that, yet then in the next post you claim it was no real goal?? That type of mentality is part of the real problem.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Insulting me is not reasoned debate. 5% is nothing and they could not achieve that because of the unfair rules (created by the duopoly). THAT is the problem. Failing to see that reality means you will never improve the situation. Instead you will continue insulting everyone who disagrees with you while 3rd parties continue to languish. I guess you aren't honestly interested in increasing 3rd party support, only insulting people who disagree with you?

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

From my own perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any citizen withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as elections are the only Constitutional means of democratically determining our (we the people's) political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that a citizen withholding their consent is also casting a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts. Collectively it becomes democracy -- an expression of our (we the people's) political will under the Constitution.

By withdrawing consent, a plurality of voters presents the lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Start a campaign to withdraw consent - something that can be directly placed before government - Right Now.

But to opt out of government would be defeatist. The people need to reclaim government - not let it wander around doing it's own thing.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Agreed, people need to reclaim government.

Except for the part where you "directly placed before government". This does not allow government any option, it is a direct exercise of democratic control under the Constitution.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

This discussion was opened up to talk about the process, not to debate about the who.

The 99% is a very large group of people that is made up of those who have differing opinions about many issues that affect their lives on a daily basis. The 99% is made up of progressives, liberals, conservatives, socialists, radical idealists, non-conformists, conspiracy theorists, utopians, and people who have just given up on ever having political representation. There is no one individual who is going to answer or solve every one of our individual issues.

But there are good people out there who would create a more healthy political environment if we could just encourage them to run for office and change the way those offices run.

Discussing who is the better candidate has nothing to do with the question of how to replace 545 individually elected officials in our central government and those who are not doing their jobs in our local governments.

[-] 0 points by DouglasAdams (90) 1 year ago

The Truth organizations that emerged in response to 9-11 would be strategic in taking politics out of the hands of politicians and placing it into the hands of an informed democracy.

Confronting the 911 Evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXNEslOqBp8

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3328) 1 year ago

Stellar video!!!! Thanks DouglasAdams! Gave me goosebumps.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I am talking about replacing ALL 545 elected officials in government over the next few elections.

This IS radical civil disobedience.

But it needs to be organized.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yeah, I'm all good on the political party scene.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Good morning GirlFriday. Coffee? :-)

So what do you think about The Green Party? Pros? Cons?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Good morning. Ya. Coffee is my friend.

They support a lot of things but the devil is in the details. I like that they want to ban privatized prisons and the three strikes laws or mandatory minimums. This means that this reverts to the judicial discretion. I dislike the legalization of marijuana and the release of non-violent prisoners.Decriminalize drugs and harm reduction. Further, many things that they support are already in place as alternative sentencing. I like their stance on health care.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"I dislike the legalization of marijuana and the release of non-violent prisoners.Decriminalize drugs and harm reduction."

So you would rather spend $52 Billion a year and see Half-of-a-Million Non-violent People Rot in Prison? Why? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269208/prison-math-and-war-drugs-veronique-de-rugy#

If that is what you really believe, then why should Alcohol be legal? Souldn't we reninstate The Prohibition Act and lock up Half of the country too?

Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year

Third leading cause of mortality, government study finds http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

:-)

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Legalization and regulation!

Putting people in prison or jail for drugs is a waste of money and destroys human being's lives.

If a meth user decides to turn to theft, arrest them for theft and include treatment.

‎1/2 of the federal prison population is serving lengthy mandatory sentences for drug convictions, many of whom have little to no history of violence or prior arrest, and who in a less punitively-focused system might have been rehabilitated through drug treatment programs.

The current cost of federal incarceration per prisoner is roughly $28,000 a year, money that could be spent on other priorities.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Decriminalization of smaller amounts and the harm reduction method in place. It has been successful where implemented. Further, the harm reduction ties over to the stance on AIDs.

I don't want to hear legalization of drugs and then more money spent on drug counseling. It shows that there has been a failure to accurately look at what is in place and the amount of cash spent on it currently with no more criteria than keeping records (at best) for three months.

In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm#drug-related

Now, simply because you legalize it does not mean that intending to obtain the money for drugs ends. Moreover, property crimes are not relevant until it's your property. Lemme repeat that for you. You are not interested in property crimes until it is your property.

Now, rather than address what constitutes a felony or what were once misdemeanors and are now felonies (or any research at all) there is nothing more than a feel good platform. Or even taking a real good look at issues such as this: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Here is the kicker, alcohol is legal. It isn't an either/or question. Bring me something much more well thought out than the because I want to get high jive.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"I don't want to hear legalization of drugs and then more money spent on drug counseling. It shows that there has been a failure to accurately look at what is in place and the amount of cash spent on it currently with no more criteria than keeping records (at best) for three months."

So you are more worried about Money than the well-being of People? Not a very Movement-oriented stance if you ask me. God-forbid someone with a drug problem get counseling. We can't have that right?

"Here is the kicker, alcohol is legal. It isn't an either/or question."

So just because alcohol is legal it doesn't matter that it is a harmful drug just like all other harmful drugs and that it kills 75,000 Americans every year? Bring you something much more well thought out than that? Your priorities and lack of compassion seriously disturbs me. But then again, the misguided priorites and lack of compassion of this entire country has always disturbed me, so you're nothing special. I hear the Wizard of Oz is giving out free hearts. Might wanna think about taking a trip down that yellow brick road...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wrong answer, babe. It's called accountability. I expect someone to do more than talk about successful treatment programs. I expect them to prove it.

Again. Alcohol is legal. Period. Now, you want drugs legal. That sounds to me like you are going to need to find another argument for it because contrasting and comparisons with alcohol is mere mental masturbation. The ball is in your court.

[-] -1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

You don't just need therapy, you need an exorcist lol And as much as I despise your retarded mentality, I'm just gonna be nice and stop right here. Keep the ball to yourself. Because I think I would rather be tortured with a hot poker than to continue this conversation any further lol

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Awww..........another bitch ass punk crying because you didn't do any research. Not my problem.

[-] -2 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

So, if an Occupier wants to run for office, they would be forced to buy into the two party system and run as either a Republican or Democrat, and be beholden to those parties belief systems, rather than to create a party - no matter how loosely formed - made up of a malleable belief system, that would grow and change as the country grows and changes?

Rather than elect officials that would be sworn into office to work with the majority, we have to trust that the the Republican or Democrat that is elected by us, who may or may not sign an affidavit, will listen to what we want, need, and desire for our future?

And while I recognize that Occupy was never meant to be a political party, it seems that Occupy is limiting itself by not redefining what a political party is.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

From my own perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

However, the democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business. Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any citizen withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as elections are the only Constitutional means of democratically determining our (we the people's) political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that a citizen withholding their consent is also casting a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political protest in the only poll that counts. Collectively it becomes democracy -- an expression of our (we the people's) political will under the Constitution.

Thus, by withdrawing their consent, a plurality of voters can present the lame-duck Congress with an undeniable Constitutional crisis if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Excellent Post! If Everyone who refuses to consent were actually counted as Votes Against all candidates for office ("The Silent Plurality" who actually make up Half of The Population of this country) -it would (and does) expose how un-representing of The People our fake so-called "representative" democracy really is. The problem I see is that such a huge portion of America, those of us who refuse to vote, who make up nearly Half of the population of this country are not necessarily counted as such. We are ignored. They act like we do not exist. We need a way to be offically counted and recognized.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Those whom refuse to vote cannot be counted, as there is no means to determine their intent. Voting is the only poll that matters.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Yes, that was my point, they are not counted, but should be counted and recognized somehow. There should be a way for us to vote our dissent. Like a (none of the above because I hate all of these fuckers and something needs to be done about it) option on the ballot lol

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

There is a way to vote your dissent -- register to vote and withdraw your consent. I understand your frustration. That is exactly the point of my original post. Vote for something other than tweedle-dum or tweedle-dee -- dissent by withdrawing your consent. But you must register and vote to be counted.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Occupy is what it is. It's frustrating to a lot of people but it's the reality we all have to live with.

If an Occupier wanted to run for office, I doubt such a person would run as a Democrat or Republican. Such a person would probably run as an Independent. The Occupy label need never be used for such a person as simply identifying with Occupy values would be enough to attract the voters in support of those values.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Not saying you dont, but most people dont realize that the Independent Party is an actual party. And then there is the Independence Party.

NPA, or No Party Affiliation, is the ticket.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Thanks.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"So, if an Occupier wants to run for office, they would be forced to buy into the two party system and run as either a Republican or Democrat,"
NO!
there are dozens of parties or you can run as an independent

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

How do we Not buy into the two party system without Not voting for the two party system? :-)

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

But I thought you said Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in 2000?

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

I did say that - do you believe that if Nader did not run, Gore would have lost?


Running for office, as I said, does not require a D or an R


In NYC OWS, I work with a Green & a Socialist Workers Party member,
both voted for Obama

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"I did say that - do you believe that if Nader did not run, Gore would have lost?"

I believe that Gore and Bush stole votes from Nader, which cost Nader the election, that Nader was the best choice and that Nader would have been the better President.

If Gore and Bush did not run, then Nader would have won :-)

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I have asked this simple question many times of many people -
no one has the courage to answer the question
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
do you believe that if Nader did not run, Gore would have lost?

I dont need to wonder why - I know.

I dare you - ask me any ( non-personal ) question
see if I have the courage to answer ANYTHING

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

That pretty much sums it up.

Actually, all the people that sat on the sidelines and didnt campaign for Nader cost him the election.

Pass the blame is an endless game.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

That is spin propaganda designed to take support away from liberal organizations.

The people that push this propaganda disregard bought elections, money in politics, corruption, oh and they also never mention the 10 million registered democrats that voted for Bush but instead THEY try to blame a few thousand people disenfranchised by the 2 party system. They also act like the WMD lies didn't exist in the 90's and that bombs and sanctions didn't already kill hundreds of thousands, and upwards to a million people, in Iraq in the 90's. They also forget about NAFTA.

We have 2 factions of the corporate state, Democrats and Republicans. And people who push the blame Nader theory are pushing for these 2 factions.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Exactamundo. Thanks Trevor.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

No problemo! Gotta get the truth out there.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet. I totally understand not wanting to buy into the two party system, but why have we not yet created our own party to change the system ourselves from within? Why didn't we at least stand behind Jill Stein and The Green Party? The Green Party seems to represent the ideals of The Movement more than any other party, why didn't we support it to help break up the Corporate Duopoly? And it wasn't like we even had to win the election. All The Green Party needed was 5% of the votes to become an offical party, receive gov. funding and to be allowed into future debates. Can anyone explain or give a good enough reason why we didn't organize enough last election to at least do that? Is there something wrong with The Green Party that I'm not aware of?

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I noted what I think is wrong with the Green Party in an above reply. Although I agree that if OWS doesn't want to put nominees up for election that joining forces with a party like the Green Party, or calling a nominee Independent/OWS might be beneficial to both in actuality.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Great point kimba! I like the FreeDA idea, but your comment digs even deeper into the problem and offers an even more effective solution. Why not combine both ideas together? Create a People-Oriented Party with all candidates signing Free Democracy Affidavits and making Pledges to advance the ideals of Democracy, initially by becoming A Truly Representative Government of We The People that actually works to serve the common good, welfare and best interests of People Over profit, By The People, For The People.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I am not for signing affadavits. Why? Because they are limiting.

While they do give the people security in thinking that they are voting for a person that will truly represent them, they also limit the elected official, in some cases, from possibly making a decision that might go against the ideals of the people, but will ultimately be in their best interest.

Case in point: I live in California and the Republicans in the state government took an oath to not raise taxes and were elected on that oath, which they all took very seriously. It has cause the people of the state no end of grief. Sure, nobody wants to pay more taxes, I'm just using that as an example of how limiting oaths/affadavits can affect the general population.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I think using the Republicans and their pledge not to raise taxes as an excuse to dimiss the idea of affadavits altogether is ridiculous and irrational. And by doing that you totally dismiss everything positive that could be gained. If The Movement were to create it's own party, we would certaintly want certain guarantees, like a pledge to refuse corporate donations for example.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I just used that as an EXAMPLE not an excuse.

Sure, there are party lines. I'm totally for party lines. I wouldn't want to accept corporate donations, or even take meetings from a lobbyist of any kind.

I would just be worried that an OWS affidavit would be limiting, at least until our powers of clairvoyance kick in.

And that's what I mean about nominating good human beings, not politicians, people that have integrity and can be trusted.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"I would just be worried that an OWS affidavit would be limiting, at least until our powers of clairvoyance kick in."

powers of clairvoyance?? wait, what did you just say? lol

"And that's what I mean about nominating good human beings, not politicians, people that have integrity and can be trusted."

Errr...ummm.....(looks around) and where do you suggest we find 545 of those? that can be trusted without pledges? lol

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

There would be a party platform.

I operate from trust and integrity - to a fault. Am I incorrect in thinking that there are possibly 545 other human beings in the United States that do as well? Am I wrong in thinking that if the call was put out for them to step up, they would not do so?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Do you really perceive that as being the case? That the only reason good people aren't in office is because they've never been called?

You honestly don't think that good human beings have indeed run from time to time only to lose to the candidates that the majority of the voters have chosen?

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

I don't think there have been 545 that have run all at the same time for the 545 seats in the Federal Government.

My original question was not about winning this election this time and that election the next time. My question was about completely replacing the people sitting in those 545 seats en masse. Finding 545 people for the next possible election cycles - which I think it would take the next three election cycles to replace everyone?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

How does running all at the same time make a difference if such people aren't already winning at this election and that election?

Why aren't such people already running and winning all the time?

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

That's a good question. And there are probably 545 answers to it. Many of which can be gleaned by taking a step back and re-reading the responses to this entire conversation.

Running all at the same time for the various governmental seats would create a loud unified appealing voice, as opposed to a lone soul that no one is listening to. It's the same theory of civil disobedience, get the group together in the park and make some noise. Instead, it's get the group together, get serious, and run the government.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

To have a loud unified voice, they would have to be organized into an identifiable group (i.e. a political party). As such, they would have to be running on something more than just their trust and integrity. Issues are what people vote for in voting for representation. What issues are going to cause the voting majority to suddenly change their voting habits to vote for the members of a new political party?

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Each of the 545 candidate would have their own personal platform - which would reflect also where they live. Corporate farm issues may be more important to the population of the Nebraska than in Arizona.

The common denominators - issues in the personal platforms that all candidates seem to have - would then make up the party platform.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 1 year ago

Sounds good but then, a lot of things do. So, what's preventing all of the folks like yourself who have come to this forum wanting Occupy to form a political party from simply starting that political party themselves?

[-] 1 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

Well, I started this post as a way of testing the waters, to see what other people are thinking, and to get an idea if it would be supported.

So in answer to your question, nothing!

My personal problem with it though is that I go back and forth between seeing the governments as something that can be repaired to an ideal state of being, or as something that should be replaced entirely with individual sovereignty. I get the feeling that something is changing (like a program running in the background) and I think whether the government is repaired or replaced will be decided for us, and then we'll have to work with whatever system is there to work with.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I totally agree that you operate from trust to a fault. But I think your integrity is absent.

I do believe there are 545 other human beings in the United States that could act like human beings and do a much better job of representing human beings and fighting for the better treatment of human beings (I was being sarcastic in the other reply). But if you think Obama is one of those? You are completely delusional and part of the problem and I would have you stay as far away from organizing the political leadership of this country as possible.

“Can you look me in the face and tell me you didn't vote for a War President?” http://occupywallst.org/forum/righteous-indignation-can-you-look-me-in-the-face-/

Location: Zuccotti Park / Occupy Wall Street Movement http://occupywallst.org/forum/location-zuccotti-park-occupy-wall-street-movement/

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

My integrity is not in question. You do not know me, nor I you, and while we may not agree on political terms or issues, or processes, it is not for either one of us to judge or criticize in an open forum things that we actually do not know about each other.

[-] 0 points by kimba (14) 1 year ago

In this moment in history, I think Obama has his place, that he is the right guy at the time, and could there be someone better, yes. But I have not yet seen that person. It's why I posed this question to Occupy.

I'm not counting out that Obama tread carefully in his first term and will step up his game in this second. It's very very hard to go against the political status quo in Washington, but I think there are possibilities for good to happen in the next four years.

In the 2008 election we had two choices. McCain or Obama. We had two choices this past election. Romney or Obama.

Really, you're going to tell me I voted for the wrong guy?

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"*In the 2008 election we had two choices. McCain or Obama. We had two choices this past election. Romney or Obama.

Really, you're going to tell me I voted for the wrong guy?*"

You and the rest of the country conviced yourself that you only had two choices because those are the only two limited choices that everyone keeps choosing from, like idiots. No one had to choose either of them. Yes you voted for the wrong guy. So did everyone who voted for Romney. The voting majority of this country is Dangerously Retarded is what I'm trying to say here. If you believe that you can only eat stale corndogs because that's what everyone else always eats, then that's all you will ever eat. I'm just saying that's retarded and no one has to eat stale corndogs if they don't want to.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But the party duopoly prevents any other candidates any chance of winning. Calling people names doesn't change that reality right? All 3rd party candidates combined did not come to 2%. There were only 2 possible winners. Obama was clearly the best choice, however disappointing he has been in caving in to the right wing, and banksters, and MIC.

[-] 2 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

"But the party duopoly prevents any other candidates any chance of winning. Calling people names doesn't change that reality right?"

You and the Dangerously Retarded voting majority of this country prevent any other candidates any chance of winning. Continuing to fall for the game and to support the party duopoly and to pretend like we don't have any other choice will never get us anything different than the party duopoly right?

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It is because of the structural obstacles that the party duopoly created to eliminate 3rd party access. Your offensive comments against the entire voting public neglects that reality. if you understood the problem you could focus your energies on improving access for 3rd parties. Instead you are just spewing meaningless insults that do nothing to improve 3rd party access and serve only to divide and alienate people who might otherwise agree with you. Seems counter productive.

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

If you could just admit that American voters are way too caught up and addicted to the two party duopoly, how obviously counter-productive that is and that we missed a great opportunity to win a major victory against that two party duopoly by organizing at least a 5% vote for Jill Stein and The Green Party then I will no longer feel the need to keep pointing that out to you and this conversation can then move on past this issue and become much more productive :-) I’ve read your other posts and I agree with most of what you are saying i.e.Improving access for 3rd parties (which includes the act of actually voting for 3rd parties) is a worthy goal, agreed?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree that voting 3rd party is worthy. I agree people must change and expand/accept party options. I'm simply suggesting for real 3rd party success we need rule changes, I further submit that insulting the people we disagree with works against that goal. If you can't agree with these simple truths fine. We don't have to agree on everything. In fact I am not agreeing with your contention that the people are the main problem nor with your tactic of insulting them. So then perhaps that is the end of the conversation. If so I'm sorry we could not agree. You do not have to respond and I will not bother you anymore.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think you voted for the best candidate who could win. This country has many problems, worst of which is the strangle hold of the corporations on our government. No one politician will break that without the people rising up and pushing our representatives to act, WE must get money out of politics and take back our government. Until then we will have only slow progress, small successes and difficult setbacks. It's up to us. Occupy, the progressive movements starting to reawaken, and growing numbers of people agitating for change.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

I believe the first order of "business" should be to End The Wars, Stop Killing People and establish a Department of Peace dedicated to the research and focus of what causes wars in the first place and how to prevent and end them without killing people 24/7 365.2424. Stop Spending Almost ALL of Our Time and Money on Death and Destruction. That would be a Good start. And to Get Money Out of Politics, End Corporate Personhood, Abolish The Electoral College, Become More of A Real Democracy. Declare FDR's Second Bill of Human Rights and go from there. That would be Great.