2012 presidential debates

[SR4]

Occupy didn't work

 

It's been a year.

 

Progressives had almost three decades, and they had far more balls than the Occupy movement ever had.

[SR4]

i think i waver a lot between extreme cynicism and hope, but i think im constantly moving toward a firm stance that nothing other than a complete catastrophe on a number of economic, environmental, military levels is required for people to progress somewhere better than where we are.

[goDel]

Try focussing on the tiny glimpses of light which show some progression. Who was that Republican lady at Bill Maher last night? Not Ann Blondy. The smart one with the red dress. I mean, a smart republican making some sense and having some balanced view on the world. They still exist.

 

There's also hope in the idea of the silent mass. The media mostly gives attention to stupid loud mouthes. There are millions of sensible people out there. Sensible enough to not let themselves get in front of a camera. There wouldn't be a Jersey Shore about normal and sensible people now, would there? Viewers would be bored out of their mind.

[Guest A/D]

Occupy didn't work

 

It's been a year.

 

Progressives had almost three decades, and they had far more balls than the Occupy movement ever had.

 

I think you're oversimplifying this. Also, some Occupy and some Progressives are doing amazing things. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it's not there. Activism is severely underreported in the US.

[azatoth]

How did the civil rights movement get it done? They managed to correct something wrong in the establishment. It could be argued that there is still a lot to be done, but big changes happened.

Why can't something similar be done again to change how democracy works. That said, there is a lot of things that need to be changed and not something you can do overnight. First thing would get the masses informed, or even aware of the problems. As it seems to me too many Americans are satisfied enough and aren't bothered by the sorry state of their country.

[awepittance]

i don't know if you can say Occupy 'didn't work' . The establishment is terrified of Occupy. It was made obvious by the incredibly overbearing police presence in both Oakland and Wall st. Not to mention that bankers and elite insiders expressed fear in private and in public forums about the possibility of it 'getting out of hand'. It's too early to tell what the next stage is. If the economy gets worse i really can't see the protest/resistance movement in the country dying down, it will only become more strong. It's a catch 22 though, the establishment's fear of a major uprising causes an overbearing and disproportionate police response already. If this uprising gets stronger, you can bet that the push back will be even more intense. If scott olsen had died in the hospital we'd still be in the thick of Occupy. It was just luck that he survived.

I've been to big anti war protests and sit-in type events, but i have never seen anything on the scale of the Oakland May Day city shut down. The entire down town of the city had been seized by the people, no cops within miles, people celebrating, drinking, playing their own sound systems. There is a real resistance here, it's just in the shadows. Whether our draconian police state 'chilling effect' will keep them in the shadows or not is another question. That's exactly the point though isnt it? To keep people complacent and afraid to speak out. That tactic won't work forever especially as things become more dire. It's only a temporary solution for power leveraging on their behalf.

[SR4]

i don't know if you can say Occupy 'didn't work' . The establishment is terrified of Occupy. It was made obvious by the incredibly overbearing police presence in both Oakland and Wall st. Not to mention that bankers and elite insiders expressed fear in private and in public forums about the possibility of it 'getting out of hand'. It's too early to tell what the next stage is. If the economy gets worse i really can't see the protest/resistance movement in the country dying down, it will only become more strong. It's a catch 22 though, the establishment's fear of a major uprising causes an overbearing and disproportionate police response already. If this uprising gets stronger, you can bet that the push back will be even more intense. If scott olsen had died in the hospital we'd still be in the thick of Occupy. It was just luck that he survived.

I've been to big anti war protests and sit-in type events, but i have never seen anything on the scale of the Oakland May Day city shut down. The entire down town of the city had been seized by the people, no cops within miles, people celebrating, drinking, playing their own sound systems. There is a real resistance here, it's just in the shadows. Whether our draconian police state 'chilling effect' will keep them in the shadows or not is another question. That's exactly the point though isnt it? To keep people complacent and afraid to speak out. That tactic won't work forever especially as things become more dire. It's only a temporary solution for power leveraging on their behalf.

 

I don't see the police state as the worst threat, its above and away apathy towards each other. Propaganda machines feed on that and further divide peoples sense of unity into "we" and the "other". And adding to that the idea of the millennial generation is one completely consumed with self-importance and unyielding criticism towards absolutely everything, without for a second taking in any possibility of a positive trait. We are all essentially "trolling" each other, because of our seemingly ineptitude to do anything else. \

 

That's why I don't understand why people say the debates are bullshit. Maybe on a surface level, but that "bullshit" influences millions of voters in a mere hour and a half. Its worth watching just to see how this whole system works, and how it continues to promote apathy or antipathy towards a group that realistically doesn't deserve it.

[awepittance]

They count on apathy, and by 'they' i mean the people in power, financially or who hold government positions.

 

Before its April 5 release of the video that’s currently making it famous, the site Wikileaks unearthed a classified CIA report (pdf download)titled “Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-Led Mission – Why Counting on Apathy Might Not be Enough” that describes potential strategies for persuading NATO allies to maintain their troop levels in Afghanistan. Thanks to the Obama administration’s misguided determination to escalate our troop presence, the pressure has begun climbing to find ways to persuade foreign governments to increase or maintain their presence there. The memo indicates the administration’s resolve in pushing its Afghanistan policy abroad and is an astonishingly revealing look at the often shady ways that policy is sold.

 

but as the memo says, counting on apathy might not be enough but it continues to play a huge role in how things have and will continue to escalate in a bad direction

[goDel]

Establishment terrified of the Occupy movement? Not in the slightest.

 

I don't know where you got that idea. Police presence? If there's a large crowd of people somewhere, police are bound to be there as well. And if that crowd is loud and potentially disruptive for other people, guess what, even more police. And if that crowd stays on the streets for days and weeks and even months. Well, what do you expect? The police presence had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment being terrified.

 

And I'm not even beginning on this "establishment" notion. Which is a false representation of something which doesn't even exist. The implication of such a term is that the establishment is a cooperative and agreeing group of people with lots of power. Given that there are people with certain powers, there's a first problem: they hardly ever agree - and more often than not have conflicting interests. Secondly, as a consequence of this disagreement and conflicting interests, there isn't much cooperation either. Take a look at Congress, for instance. If there is a single top of a pyramid (which there isn't), it'd be a zero-sum game. At the top, for someone to win, another has to loose. If there only was a single pyramid. Things would be simple.

 

The Wallstreet big banks still believe they have nothing to fear (they're making profits, and the markets are perfectly fine). The only thing they fear are stockmarkets, bad investments, collapse of the EU and that kind of shit. People on the street protesting? No. How would they be a threat? The big banks are international institutions anyways. Yes, that spaceship finance. They'd consider themselves the engineer from Prometheus, but that'd be an entire different story. A story about narcissism first and foremost. Not real power. If they would have real power, there wouldn't have been a huge collapse of the financial system. Their financial system.

[Guest abusivegeorge]

[SR4]

Establishment terrified of the Occupy movement? Not in the slightest.

 

I don't know where you got that idea. Police presence? If there's a large crowd of people somewhere, police are bound to be there as well. And if that crowd is loud and potentially disruptive for other people, guess what, even more police. And if that crowd stays on the streets for days and weeks and even months. Well, what do you expect? The police presence had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment being terrified.

 

And I'm not even beginning on this "establishment" notion. Which is a false representation of something which doesn't even exist. The implication of such a term is that the establishment is a cooperative and agreeing group of people with lots of power. Given that there are people with certain powers, there's a first problem: they hardly ever agree - and more often than not have conflicting interests. Secondly, as a consequence of this disagreement and conflicting interests, there isn't much cooperation either. Take a look at Congress, for instance. If there is a single top of a pyramid (which there isn't), it'd be a zero-sum game. At the top, for someone to win, another has to loose. If there only was a single pyramid. Things would be simple.

 

The Wallstreet big banks still believe they have nothing to fear (they're making profits, and the markets are perfectly fine). The only thing they fear are stockmarkets, bad investments, collapse of the EU and that kind of shit. People on the street protesting? No. How would they be a threat? The big banks are international institutions anyways. Yes, that spaceship finance. They'd consider themselves the engineer from Prometheus, but that'd be an entire different story. A story about narcissism first and foremost. Not real power. If they would have real power, there wouldn't have been a huge collapse of the financial system. Their financial system.

 

i think you might be misreading my definition of establishment...because i largely agree with your portrayal of "the people at the top".

 

its the systemic collectivism of power within institutionalized government-business relations that is the problem, not an individual or group of individuals. The financial system collapsed primarily because it relies on competing power structures (i.e. corporations or corporate cabals) within the institutionalized structure at large (federalized govt, ability and subsequent inability to legislate and repeal legislation), etc.

 

in other words, power is not something "controlled" by a group of like-minded people, but is rather a conduit through which these things flow. the way our society is structured makes it more conducive for the systems of power to corrupt.

[goDel]

i think you might be misreading my definition of establishment...because i largely agree with your portrayal of "the people at the top".

 

its the systemic collectivism of power within institutionalized government-business relations that is the problem, not an individual or group of individuals. The financial system collapsed primarily because it relies on competing power structures (i.e. corporations or corporate cabals) within the institutionalized structure at large (federalized govt, ability and subsequent inability to legislate and repeal legislation), etc.

 

in other words, power is not something "controlled" by a group of like-minded people, but is rather a conduit through which these things flow. the way our society is structured makes it more conducive for the systems of power to corrupt.

 

It was more a response to awe's post. But I'll take the bite anyways.

 

If I understand you correct and oversimplify your statement to one you haven't made (but might be useful for the argument) you say something like the institutions are the things to blame for the financial crisis. I'm not sure wether you're aiming at particular institutions or institutions in general (as some part of a system, whatever that may be), but I'll disagree nevertheless. It was a mixture of things. And institutions (or systems) themselves are not nearly at the top of the list of things to blame, imo. Institutions aren't entities which do wrong or right by just existing.

 

When things go wrong or right, it's mostly about a set of policies, a set of laws and a bunch of external factors like earthquakes and wars somewhere in the world. The institutions are there to execute a certain set of policies/laws given to them by the government.

 

The fact (imo), that certain laws/policies weren't functioning properly didn't have anything to do (to a large extent) with the institutions. For instance, listen to Greenspan admitting he had some wrong ideas about how economies function. That faulty philosophy doesn't have much to do with institutions, if you ask me. But it did have the consequence that certain laws were not into place, and certain policies (Bush basically giving houses away for free).

 

The most basic thing that went wrong, was that the wrong set of policies/laws were so successful in the first place. Anyone saying otherwise would be laughed at, at the time. Everyone was making money at some point (sub-prime mortgages anyone?). Until things went wrong and the bubble burst. In hindsight, there weren't many people who would have it otherwise just because it was so successful.

 

Even if there would have been a sensible president telling society to stop lending money and buying houses. I don't think many people would have understood a change in policies while everything was doing so well. Half the world is to blame for being drunk on unsustainable success. Blaming institutions or the system is the easy way out, imo.

[SR4]

its certainly not the easy way out. even if we revise these structures, power still transfers and manifests into something else. it requires an ever-vigilant eye.

 

id go into more detail, but i gotta do some cleaning. ill try to jump back on later and clarify.

[awepittance]

Establishment terrified of the Occupy movement? Not in the slightest.

 

I don't know where you got that idea. Police presence? If there's a large crowd of people somewhere, police are bound to be there as well. And if that crowd is loud and potentially disruptive for other people, guess what, even more police. And if that crowd stays on the streets for days and weeks and even months. Well, what do you expect? The police presence had absolutely nothing to do with the establishment being terrified.

 

were you there at any of the occupy Wall st or Oakland protests? They almost killed an Iraq war veteran with a tear gas canister shot directly at his skull. By all eye witness accounts it was an intentional act and not accidental. When people tried to give him medical assistance they shot flash grenades directly at them. I don't agree with the notion that any time a large group of people takes to the streets it's met with an overwhelming militarized police forced donning shields masks and tear gas. I've been to plenty of large 'out of hand' non political gatherings which encountered nothing of the sort. Usually a mild police presence helps the crowd disperse. IF you went to any of these protests you would see with your own eyes that it's an intimidation game, it's goal is not just to disperse or stop a large gathering, it's to terrify the people into not doing it again. Watch the protests at the G8 or a decade ago in Seattle. They were protesting this power establishment that i speak of, and they were met with extreme overwhelming intimidating force, disproportionate to the protest itself.

 

And I'm not even beginning on this "establishment" notion. Which is a false representation of something which doesn't even exist. The implication of such a term is that the establishment is a cooperative and agreeing group of people with lots of power. Given that there are people with certain powers, there's a first problem: they hardly ever agree - and more often than not have conflicting interests. Secondly, as a consequence of this disagreement and conflicting interests, there isn't much cooperation either.

 

 

i think this is a false notion that none of the large media organizations or financial elites in this country agree on things. How do you explain all of the major 24 hour news channels parroting pure government propaganda in the wake of 9/11 and to help launch the IRaq war? Were they in disagreement with each-other? Not really on the major issue. Political party factions 'disagree' with each-other in rhetoric mostly, but in substance they mostly agree with each-other. There was major bipartisan support for things like the Patriot act, the iraq war, the bank bailouts and pretty much every devastatingly horrible move in the last decade. If i try very hard to think of things with substance that the major political parties disagreed with it would be abortion and gay rights. Beyond that, when it comes to foreign policy and catering to Wall st and corporations they pretty much agree. Explain to me how something like the telecom immunity bill could be passed so effortlessly had it not been for a large agreement between both political parties and the corporations they cater to?

With so much corporate money and lobbying happening in congress and the senate and with every president filling their cabinets with 'ex' corporate players, i don't really understand how you could deny the existence of a very strong and powerful establishment that at least agrees on certain major crucial issues that effect everybody in america. Sure they don't agree on everything, and i'm not suggesting some kind of 'new world order'. I'm suggesting that a power structure exists, mostly western based that exerts control over a lot of other nations, the population of the united states and britain and intends to keep us afraid of expressing anything (physically or otherwise) that can be seen as remotely a threat to undermine this power.

 

You remember when Julian Assange was starting to get a lot of donations? How do you explain mastercard, visa, amazon (the web hosting service they used), paypal and a whole slew of other private corporations disallowing you to send donations to a private organization that has not been charged with a crime? If there is no power establishment like you claim, i'd love to an alternate explanation to how this could occur. What happened with Wikileaks is an unprecedented event, and can only be really explained by a deep entrenchment of a power establishment that when it can't charge someone with a crime it exerts whatever control it can to stop threats. Even if it was something as simple as the American government telling these corporations they must cease allowing donations you still have to question why they would listen to them. Wikileaks broke no actual laws, and the government with the help of private corporations tried to stop Wikileaks from continuing.

 

I'd be happy to find some quotes for you of Ceos and wall st bankers who went on the record expressing fear about Occupy (back to my original point) If you are interested

[syd syside]

Well said Awepittance... It's unfortunate that the "conspiracy theories" that do get media attention seem to focus solely on the more extreme end of the spectrum, deterring more sensible discussions of a similar nature by stereotyping "questioning" as "unpatriotic" or "loony." Either the media is functioning more as a cultural/political influence with a monopolistic agenda (both politically and privately) or they are purely profit driven to the point of disregarding anti-US government coverage that might promote systemic changes within their industry and their customers (advertisers, not people). The news in many ways acts as a feedback loop of its most insane (Fox News), where "progressive" coverage is in a more defensive role that focuses more on the opposing negatives rather than promoting ideals.

[Guest A/D]

I think there are probably very few real meetings where "establishment" types hash out "how it's going to be". I don't think they're necessary. People with the same amount of wealth and power often have the same interests. Lots of corporations want fewer economic & environmental controls, and work alongside each other to achieve this. No memo required.

[SR4]

I think there are probably very few real meetings where "establishment" types hash out "how it's going to be". I don't think they're necessary. People with the same amount of wealth and power often have the same interests. Lots of corporations want fewer economic & environmental controls, and work alongside each other to achieve this. No memo required.

 

good responses. this is essentially my point here. Institutionalization of the processes of power does not mean a cadre of people actively pursue a carefully planned agenda...but rather the agenda is one of the natural automatic functions of these institutional structures.

[patternoverlap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-self-destruction-of-the-1-percent.html?smid=fb-share&fb_source=message&_r=0

[Salvatorin]

http://www.nytimes.c...ce=message&_r=0

not a bad article

[LimpyLoo]

Mad lolsies at folks who don't know anything about Occupy talking about Occupy. If you don't think the government is afraid of Occupy then you're clearly not paying attention to the details.

[awepittance]

not to mention that many people who grew up in the sixties ie: Alan Moore see the occupy as something much more threatening to the power establishment than anything that took place during the Vietnam war protests. Not that saying something like that is going to convince anybody but Vietnam directly effected americans, we had the draft. You could argue people protested simply to save their own skin, they didnt want to go to war.

 

great article from the NY times, i think a way to get people in denial of an 'establishment' is to stop referring to them as the 1%. It's true that there are probably over 1 million people who fall into this category, and it wouldn't make sense for them even on an institutional level to be on the 'same page'. It's the .001% percent we should be focusing on, the 'super rich' as Ralph Nader calls them, who literally hold the world's power balance in their hands. I understand the branding needed to make Occupy have a catchy slogan, it wouldn't be as easy to chant 'we are the 99.99%'

[SR4]

not to mention that many people who grew up in the sixties ie: Alan Moore see the occupy as something much more threatening to the power establishment than anything that took place during the Vietnam war protests. Not that saying something like that is going to convince anybody but Vietnam directly effected americans, we had the draft. You could argue people protested simply to save their own skin, they didnt want to go to war.

 

great article from the NY times, i think a way to get people in denial of an 'establishment' is to stop referring to them as the 1%. It's true that there are probably over 1 million people who fall into this category, and it wouldn't make sense for them even on an institutional level to be on the 'same page'. It's the .001% percent we should be focusing on, the 'super rich' as Ralph Nader calls them, who literally hold the world's power balance in their hands. I understand the branding needed to make Occupy have a catchy slogan, it wouldn't be as easy to chant 'we are the 99.99%'

 

you also had over 50,000 deserters from the US Army after witnessing combat conditions and objectives in Vietnam. i would say that is quite a huge difference between then/now.

 

For Occupy to truly be considered relevant on a level compared to Vietnam protests/criticisms, you need to curtail the center/center-right. This is not happening currently.

[awepittance]

one could argue that the Tea Party movement in it's original incarnation was a response to the bank bailouts until it got co-opted by the republican party who siphoned energy from a brewing and rather large anti big government libertarian movement in the US. Once Glenn Beck and Koch Brothers took it over it became part of the 2 party establishment and evolved into something more partisan, racist and fascist than it was ever meant to be.

[syd syside]

one could argue that the Tea Party movement in it's original incarnation was a response to the bank bailouts until it got co-opted by the republican party who siphoned energy from a brewing and rather large anti big government libertarian movement in the US. Once Glenn Beck and Koch Brothers took it over it became part of the 2 party establishment and evolved into something more partisan, racist and fascist than it was ever meant to be.

 

Definitely... which is a good example of how there are agreements on both sides of the political coin on the bigger issues, but petty bullshit clouds the airways.

[SR4]

IN the early 19th century, the United States was one of the most egalitarian societies on the planet

 

 

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE

 

one could argue that the Tea Party movement in it's original incarnation was a response to the bank bailouts until it got co-opted by the republican party who siphoned energy from a brewing and rather large anti big government libertarian movement in the US. Once Glenn Beck and Koch Brothers took it over it became part of the 2 party establishment and evolved into something more partisan, racist and fascist than it was ever meant to be.

 

right. so in other words, a failure.