Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement.
To me, it seems like it would cause the opposite reaction. I will incite more anger. They will go apesh*t.
The people that will take the brunt of their anger, though, will be small business owners. It's stupid. I hate modern protestors and their protesting: they always do it wrong.
Originally posted by King KandyWell let me tell you as someone who lives in Oakland and is inconvenienced by this "occupy" bullshit on a daily basis that it's hardly "pro-corporate bias". The Occupy movement is a failure. The lack of leadership and lack of cohesion between its members has resulted in the Occupy movement becoming nothing more than an opportunity for people to act a fool and for disease to spread. In Oakland alone people have been killed, not by the police, but by protestors. There have been numerous assaults, lootings,shootings, and acts of arson. The camps that the protestors have set up have failed every single sanitation test made by health inspectors since their conception. If you ask twenty different Occupy protestors what goal the protestors hope to achieve, you'll get twenty different answers because there is no unified goal beyond the vague of notion of "down with the banks".
Obviously. These movements have completely revealed the pro-corporate bias on all levels of government. It is not just the NY protests, many of the other occupied cities have launched evictions. The mayor of oakland just admitted on TV that she was talking to 18 other mayors about how to crush the movement.
Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why should such a complete mess be allowed to exist?
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.
Also, I consider the right to protest for a fee of $10 (a license to protest) to be unconstitutional, as well: it technically falls under "disparate impact" and should be made illegal. What if you're protesting the government not protecting your job (lol...that's what they are doing). Then purchasing a $10 license to protest creates a "disparate impact" on one group but not others. However, that impact is not protected by race, religion, gender, bla bla bla. So it is not disparate impact. But it IS because one group would be much more affected by that local law than other groups. It just so happens that the groups are not protected under Article VI or VII (Civil Rights).
Does anyone know of a way that the $10 fee for protesting could be considered unconstitutional? To me, it falls under the same lines as the "grandfather clause" for black voters. Not as harsh and mean...but still similar in that it prevents certain people from exercising their constitutional rights.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, mostly because it is a constitutional right.
No its not.
They have the right to protest. That right does not shield them from other things they do while protesting.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I consider the right to protest for a fee of $10 (a license to protest) to be unconstitutional, as well: it technically falls under "disparate impact" and should be made illegal.
Absolutely.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Does anyone know of a way that the $10 fee for protesting could be considered unconstitutional? To me, it falls under the same lines as the "grandfather clause" for black voters. Not as harsh and mean...but still similar in that it prevents certain people from exercising their constitutional rights.
It clearly abridges the right of the people to protest.
The System is partly corrupt because of the apathy of those who are too lazy to particpate.
Do you think that politicians would ignore the masses if the masses actually voted? Politicians play to what gets them electected or re-ellected.
I'm not so much saying that "[i]they have to participate in a system that they find corrupt before they can criticize it[i]", I am saying that they have to realize that by not participating, they all share responsibility in the system not working, and if you are not going to take the time to particpate in the system, then don't expect much from it.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Do you think that politicians would ignore the masses if the masses actually voted?
yes, I do vehemently and with considerable empirical data from what people who do vote already get from their politicians
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Politicians play to what gets them electected or re-ellected.
yes, which is in almost every case, campaign funding
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, I do vehemently and with considerable empirical data from what people who do vote already get from their politicians
If 60% of registers voters turn out and vote, the results are based on what the majority of that 60% of the population want. Now when a considerable chunk of those who vote are of particular financial bracket, those folks get what they want.
I am not saying that the system works, I am saying that if you are going to try to change the system, at least trying to use the opportunties that it lends you is the first step.
Is the system fair? No, nothing is fair, fair does not exist. Does sitting in a tent telling others that the system is not fair help, I don't think so (and they may prove me wrong).
Not sure how the system works in other places, but in Canada, spoiling your vote is a protest vote. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your vote and say so.
If a certain percentage spoil their vote(not sure what the percentage has to be) then you have to reboot the campaign. If people exceercised that choice, maybe you'd see candidates that actually represent you. We'll never know because it will never happen. I'm just saying that I see these people go to the extreme of living in tents in zero degree weather, but I an interested in how many voted.
If you don't particpate in a democracy, do you expect others to make it work for you?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Not sure how the system works in other places, but in Canada, spoiling your vote is a protest vote. If you don't like any of the candidates, spoil your vote and say so.If a certain percentage spoil their vote(not sure what the percentage has to be) then you have to reboot the campaign. If people exceercised that choice, maybe you'd see candidates that actually represent you. We'll never know because it will never happen. I'm just saying that I see these people go to the extreme of living in tents in zero degree weather, but I an interested in how many voted.
If you don't particpate in a democracy, do you expect others to make it work for you?
There are other ways of participating in a democracy than using your one vote though. And not every place has that "spoil your vote" option. I agree of course that they should vote (if they have a feasible option) or run for office themselves, but that's not the only thing you can do, another option, at least in the western world, is peaceful protest, another may be lobbying.
I don't know what the numbers of Occupy Protesters is in terms of voting participation is though, I'd actually assume it to be higher than average...