OWS costing jobs-actions have consequences

[bara]

I never Understood the two party system, could some american person try to explain what is the rationale behind it?

There was a reason the founding fathers did not want a party system at all. It creats a them v. us attitude that accomplishes nothing. It works great on a football feild... halls of congress, not so much.

[Greenday]

I never Understood the two party system, could some american person try to explain what is the rationale behind it?

Two groups duke it out for rulership of the country while the masses suffer.

[Gravekeeper]

Two groups duke it out for rulership of the country while the masses suffer.

As far as I understand it, the GOP want power so that they can impose their fucking batshit crazy idea of America on everyone else ( While lining their own pockets ), the Democrats want power so they can maintain the status quo ( While lining their own pockets ) and Obama wants power so someone, anyone from either party will fucking listen to him for once. ;p

[protege]

My dad has always said that the "D" and "R" labels should be done away with. Instead of focusing on one letter, it would force people to actually vote on the *person* instead of the party. But, we all know that will never happen. That would make people actually have to think

[Andara Bledin]

You can't change anything without money, and the people that don't want anything to change have more money than you do. -.-

With they way things change, the people that don't want anything to change have more money on a 1-100 scale; and that's just the gross. When you start to take out what's needed to actually live on, then you find that many of those who want the changes don't even have enough for that, much less anything left over.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

My dad has always said that the "D" and "R" labels should be done away with. Instead of focusing on one letter, it would force people to actually vote on the *person* instead of the party. But, we all know that will never happen. That would make people actually have to think

I agree. I can't stand it when people blindly vote for a party or some other stupid label instead of actually getting the facts.

My grandma is a good example of that. A few years ago, back when my son was just starting to get some idea about politics, but didn't really understand what a touchy subject it can be, my wife, my son, and myself were having dinner with my grandma. I'm not sure how we got onto this subject, but my son wondered aloud, "Why would anyone vote for Bush?" My grandma spoke of and said, "I voted for him." My son asked her why. Her answer was, "Because I'm a registered republican."

My feelings about Bush aside, I think that's a very stupid reason to vote for anyone. If she had actually weighed the pros and cons and decided he was the better man for the job, then by all means she should vote for him. But she blindly voted for him based on some stupid label.

People like to complain about people who don't vote. I think people who vote without putting any thought into it do a lot more damage than those who don't vote.

[Hyena Dandy]

Its a shame that she lost business, and many of her workers lost their jobs. Especially the second part.

I find it disturbing to just dismiss that people have lost their livelihood, especially since these people are the ones who you're supposed to be fighting for.

There's no need to stop protesting, but you should acknowledge at least that you ARE hurting people. Just like when I was talking before about the Occupy Boston having lost 150,000 for the city. You shouldn't be forced to stop, but you should be asked to know that your actions have consequences..

As for the comments earlier in the thread that we shouldn't worry about a few employees having a bad day...

Well, yes, we should, but more so this wasn't just having a bad day. This is 21 people losing their jobs.

[dendawg]

My dad has always said that the "D" and "R" labels should be done away with. Instead of focusing on one letter, it would force people to actually vote on the *person* instead of the party. But, we all know that will never happen. That would make people actually have to think

No it wouldn't....it would just make people come up with new labels.

[jackfaire]

You can't change anything without money, and the people that don't want anything to change have more money than you do. -.-

Really cuz last I checked the reason there are virtually only two parties is because the 99% mostly only votes for those two parties. There are plenty of other candidates who run.

Oh and in the age of the internet "don't have money" is not an excuse. If you want to find a political candidate that you like get online and research who is running find the one you want and then post links to your friends your family and get the guy elected.

I mean hell if we can have such a thing is viral videos then why aren't we having viral elections?

People are usig the internet to change the face of Hollywood without money. People create webcomics that become nationally read with little to no money to start with.

TV isn't the only medium that exists anymore. We aren't limited by which politicians can afford a ton of commercials and which can't. If we really are the 99% then we need to stop hiding behind the "there is no money excuse" and use our network to tell everyone who we really want.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh and in the age of the internet "don't have money" is not an excuse. If you want to find a political candidate that you like get online and research who is running find the one you want and then post links to your friends your family and get the guy elected.

Honestly that couldn't be more wrong. Money is everything in American politics. End. Of. Story. It takes money to run. It takes money to campaign. It takes money to even register on the national conciousness. It doesn't matter if other mediums exist, you will be shut out by the established status quo if you do not conform to their team. You won't be invited to debates. There are no third party debates. There are GOP primary debates and Democrat primary debates. End of story. Even in those debates, if you're not a favoured candidate, the media will utterly ignore you like Ron Paul and John Huntsman.

TV isn't the only medium that exists anymore. We aren't limited by which politicians can afford a ton of commercials and which can't. If we really are the 99% then we need to stop hiding behind the "there is no money excuse" and use our network to tell everyone who we really want.

Its not an excuse, its a demonstratable fact. It doesn't matter if a medium exists because A) Not everyone uses it and B) America by and large has some serious engrained confirmation bias after decades of the two party system. This is why Fox thrives despite being blatant shit shoveling to the outside observer.

People do not want to see other points of view, they want to see views that confirm the beliefs they already hold. They are not going to turn off Fox and hop on the Internet to watch a viral video of some third party candidate. Because Fox isn't going to tell them to do so. Fox is going to shut out everyone thats not 100% GOP approved.

You're dealing with large groups of people that think evolution is a wild guess concocted by Satan. These are not intellectually curious, Internet sauvy people that actually give a shit what the other team says. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

You won't be invited to debates.

Wont' be invited? Try will be actively barred and refused entrance.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

There was a reason the founding fathers did not want a party system at all. It creats a them v. us attitude that accomplishes nothing. It works great on a football feild... halls of congress, not so much.

Unfortunately, they built a two-party system into the Constitution. When you create a winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post voting system without bothering to use proportional voting systems at all, you get a two-party system without fail. It's the mathematical result of that system. Ah well.

I mean hell if we can have such a thing is viral videos then why aren't we having viral elections?

Mainly because the Constitution forbids direct democracy like that? Also, there are these things called election laws that determine who exactly gets on the ballot?

You might say that "Oh, I'll just write in a candidate." Did you know that in many elections, write-in candidates are thrown away or not counted? And that this is by law?

It's a lot more complicated than you think.

TV isn't the only medium that exists anymore. We aren't limited by which politicians can afford a ton of commercials and which can't. If we really are the 99% then we need to stop hiding behind the "there is no money excuse" and use our network to tell everyone who we really want.

It isn't just about commercials. It's about filing fees. It's about reaching the people who AREN'T on the internet, which is actually about half of the USA. It's about having to participate in debates, in being able to travel to campaign, in doing self-promotion.

[Rapscallion]

Unfortunately, they built a two-party system into the Constitution. When you create a winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post voting system without bothering to use proportional voting systems at all, you get a two-party system without fail. It's the mathematical result of that system. Ah well.

The UK uses first past the post as well. We've got three main parties. The third is relatively minor, but currently propping up one of the two main parties in a coalition that neither are particularly happy about. There's a requirement for the main broadcasters to give over time to party political broadcasts if the parties attain certain standards (can't remember what they are, but they exist).

We also have a fair number of minor parties, following the usual gamut of beliefs from isolationist, through inclusivist, through racist, to whackadoodle.

I don't agree with your maths.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

problem is until the third parties in the US receive at least 10% of the popular vote they are denied access to federal campaign monies. And as far as being accused of "splitting the vote" that does happen, Al Gore sued to have Ralph Nader removed from the ballots in WI(he failed because Nader had met the legal requirements to be on the ballot).

Because of the heavily funded two parties people don't vote for anyone, they feel they have to vote against the other guy. They don't vote for the third party because they're afraid the other guy will win.

And as an aside, I'm not just complaining about the current political climate, I have actually helped do something about it-I'm a volunteer for a very new political party(as in less than 6 months old-but has chapters in all 50 states already, so it's not that difficult to change things, if you put the anger into action)

[Gravekeeper]

Because of the heavily funded two parties people don't vote for anyone, they feel they have to vote against the other guy. They don't vote for the third party because they're afraid the other guy will win.

Pretty much, you're not voting for the local D or R, you're voting against the national D or R. Voting for a third party is considered tossing your vote away.

( Don't look at me, I voted for Kodos )