Republican's in Occupy.

[donheld]

I'm sorry I haven't kept up with what everybody here is doing in Occupy, but I'd like to know from those of you involved how you deal with republicans in the movement. Here in Occupy Denver we have at least two conservatives one of whom is a Log Cabin republican. I know we're all about solidarity, but sometimes I have a huge issue with this. How do you all deal with this?

[Lionessa]

1. Have they caused any trouble? Please elaborate why disgruntled republicans can't be part of the 99%

[donheld]

2. umm

1. Where did I say they couldn't be part of Occupy?
2. They're disgruntled enough to push for people like Gary Johnson who believes in free market crap.
3. The Log cabiner says he's only in Occupy to get Gay Marriage.

[kickysnana]

3. How Republicanly selfish of the Log Cabiner.

Operatives vs converts. There is a difference.

[Lionessa]

5. Well

1. You said you needed to "deal" with them, which sounds a lot like you want them gone.
2 Disgruntled is good so long as they are disgruntled at the same sort of top down bs we've been facing. Many repubs still believe in free market and believe the banks and AIG should've been allowed to fail causing a much harder but probably shorter recession since a bunch of homeowners would own their homes outright with no bank left to pay, etc. Not an altogether outrageous idea, it is the privatization of profit and the socialization of losses, so either side being changed might have been a different outcome.

3. Well, one reason is better than none.


Sounds like you are too worried that everyone be disgruntled exactly the way you are and wanting the same solutions.

I think Occupy is more about just having the opportunity to count, our votes don't count , our voices don't count, all because of income inequality and the way that effects the policies by our bought and paid for politicians. So anyone, imo, that is willing to rage against the income inequality that leads to our votes being essentially useless because no matter who we vote for they are bought off to do the 1%ers bidding, is worth having on board.

Mainly though, Occupy can't claim to represent the 99% if you're going to insist that they all agree with progressive perspectives.

[donheld]

6. You sure read a lot into things.

I did not say I want them gone. I want tips on how to deal with them. I guess this was the wrong group to ask.

[Lionessa]

8. But you give no indication as to why they need to be dealt with.

[Chan790]

13. You're utilizing two entirely different concepts of "deal"

1.) To remove.

2.) To pursue the establishment of a commonality.

[pinboy3niner]

14. You came to the right place

But, since Occupy has no membership cards, no entrance requirements, and is based pretty much on who shows up, I'm not sure how to help you. The only poor advice I might give is to avoid those you don't feel comfortable with.

I get a little uncomfortable, too, not so much with the wingnuts or Paulbots who may show up, but with some of our ultra-liberals. The young kids who get in the face of the cops and are unnecessarily provocative. I don't care for what they do, so I try to avoid them. And there are so many other GREAT people in the Occupy movement that it's actually pretty easy for me to surround myself with them.

The best part, for me, is when I have the chance to do an Occupy action with other DUers like Fire Walk With Me, U4ikLefty, ellisonz, Mr. and Mrs. coalition_unwilling, and Zhade. If you find that there are some people you don't like, just stick with the good people and don't worry about it. We'll have thousands come out for some protests, and I'm pretty sure there will be some there that I may not like. But I don't have to like everyone who is demonstrating with me. That's just the way it is. I may not like every single one of my neighbors, either.

[donheld]

7. What about my Original post made you paint me as disgruntled?

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Lone voices cannot gain consensus at GA; this is a protective mechanism.

[Zorra]

9. Never, ever trust a republican. Ever.

Republican ideology, rule of and by the wealthy few, is what we are struggling against.

Please let us know if they start trying to take over at GA's.

[Benjamin Parish]

10. Yea.

Occupy is an open tent, imo.

[sabrina 1]

11. Occupy has clear goals and any US Citizen who is concerned eg, about the money in Politics

which has totally corrupted our system, is welcome to join and try to do something about it. It is not partisan, that is what has divided this country for so long. It is about issues, not parties.

Who people vote for is their own business, but being a part of a movement that educates people about what has created the huge problems evident over the past number of years, can and has resulted in a more educated population, not reliant on the Corporate Media.

[limpyhobbler]

12. Bring in more people?

If it is a really small GA I see how it could be a issue.

[backscatter712]

15. The whole point of Occupy is to form a new community, and build solidarity.

I think I know at least one of the two Republicans you're talking about. As far as I'm concerned, if they're making positive contributions, I'm all for bringing them in.

Also, disagreement's another thing that's been with Occupy since the beginning, and part of the purpose of Occupy is to help us figure out how to move forward and find common ground despite our differences. It doesn't mean compromising core values, but since this person's interested in legalizing gay marriage, there's something in common with which we can work with him.

One thing I've observed is that at least some of the Joe-Blow Republicans - the regular folks, can be reasoned with. It's the elites - the politicians that are bound and determined to wage war against us at all costs, and the rank-and-file types don't always want to follow.

[hack89]

16. You have no choice but to accept them

if you wish a social movement that transcends political parties and spans all of the 99%. If you start with the position that OWS = progressive then all you have done is create a counterweight to the Tea Party. Which is not a bad thing but is more likely to preserve the status quo than change society.

[Zorra]

17. Not really. No republican would have sincere motivations for participating in Occupy.

We are ideological opposites in every way.

If a republican comes to an Occupy GA, it can only be because they have bad intentions as motivation for their interaction with the collective.

[hack89]

18. So explain to me how a social movement that does not represent all of the 99%

bring about real change? All you are left with is a counterweight for the Tea Party which, while a good thing, is probably not enough to change the world.

[Zorra]

19. Can you name one successful social or revolutionary movement that had universal support?

None of them ever did, anywhere, as far as I can tell.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood." Martin Luther King, Jr

Towards independence

When the American Revolutionary War began in 1775, few colonists in British North America openly advocated independence from Great Britain. Support for independence grew steadily in 1776, especially after the publication of Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense in January of that year. In the Second Continental Congress, the movement towards independence was guided principally by an informal alliance of delegates eventually known as the "Adams-Lee Junto", after Samuel Adams and John Adams of Massachusetts and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia.


Join, or Die by Benjamin Franklin was recycled to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule.

[hack89]

20. The difference is that none of those groups disengaged from the political process

they were intensely political. MLK, for example, spent hours lobbying the president, congress and other politicians in support of civil rights legislation. They understood that without legislation there would be no change.

Occupy doesn't seem to care so much about implementing real change.

[Zorra]

21. But what has that got to do with Occupy's opposition becoming

part of Occupy? Republican's/Third Way are Occupy's opposition. The British were the colonist's opposition. Racists were/are the Civil Rights Movements opposition. Sexists were/are the Women's Movements opposition. Bigots are the LGBIQ movements opposition.

They did not/do not need to incorporate their opposition to effect change.

Occupy is not concerned at this time with directly engaging in the political process. We are still in the process of changing the collective consciousness of the nation and planet.

Changes of the nature that Occupy wishes to bring about cannot be brought about from within the system at this time because the system has been completely compromised by the 1%, and the 1% is not going to act against its own selfish interests to accommodate the wishes of the 99%.

As the system progresses to fail, more and more people will come to the obvious conclusion that the system is hopelessly broken.

Occupy is the alternative. We recognize the lessons of the past, but the 1% has learned how to protect itself from change, by completely taking over the system. So we have to think outside of the box, and use new methods to bring about change.

We are engaging in, and creating new, ways to alter the future so that we can preserve democracy and improve upon it, and save the planet at the same time.

[hack89]

22. You are right - that is a different failure on Occupy's part. nt

[Vincardog]

23. The problem is "The political process is the problem". With the current system there can be no

no change.

[hack89]

24. Then OWS truly is irrelevant

because there is absolutely no sign that the American public agrees with OWS that the entire system needs to be changed. If that is their goal, they will fade further into irrelevancy as the election heats up and engages the public's attention. In November, if OWS finds themselves on the outside looking in at an Obama victory then they finished forever.

[Vincardog]

25. You have a right to your opinion

[Zorra]

28. "In November, if OWS finds themselves on the outside looking in at an Obama victory then they

finished forever".

Now I totally get it.

Peace, bro.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Occupy is not about Obama so hows that?

[hack89]

31. Because if they had no influence on the election, they have no influence period.

If Obama can get elected without OWS help then all they have done is demonstrate how little real power and influence they have.

[2pooped2pop]

26. I think Occupy always seemed to tolerate those that

might have other reasons to hang out with the Occupy. As long as they are not causing fights, then just try to let them be. I am thinking of when Occupy was in Zucotti Park and the police would send down local drunks or newly released people. They were tolerated and even fed, even though they cared not about OWS at all but just wanted the free food.

the 99% encompasses a whole lot of different types of people. Bring em to our side by showing them how real concerned citizens and yes, patriots should act.


I think perhaps as long as your guys don't cause fights, then ignore them if you don't like them.

If teabaggers would stop drinking from the foxhole, they would probably be occupiers.

Occupy always told me, as I too have a problem being near tea baggers after the damage they have caused this country, that it was not about one party or another party but more about the whole issue of the 1% vs the rest of us.

Hope that helps some.

[Carroll]

32. 1% or the Congress?

>> Bring em to our side
Always good to hear a voice of reason.

The numbers really never added up for me. In the most round of numbers, the country has about 25% each of the solid Left and the solid Right and another 50% that only leans to and fro from the center. I am puzzled as to how the 25% hard Right is included in the 99%. But let's not worry now about numbers.

Have you ever considered that the definition of the 1% as the problem could be misleading us? After all, the repugnant laws that enable the 1% to crap on us is the work of Congress. What if the real division is the Congress vs. the 100%, with the 1% as the group with the fewest gripes about the system. Look at it this way: the nation has enormous wealth and huge revenue to spend to provide for the commonwealth. Yet that money seems to get spent however Congress figures will give them the greatest gain in re-election funds, tenure in office and personal wealth. Congress is a club with no end. One club; two sides of the aisle. It's Congress that benefits from the diversion of our chasing after the 1% instead of examining the unofficial capital market at the core of the political system (legislation bartered for campaign funding, etc.). If we hate capitalism so much, why not focus on that bit of capitalism that is killing us, and challenge Congress on the private ownership of the nation's wealth. Occupy the Treasury and give ownership rights of its surpluses to the individual taxpayers. Force Congress into the intended role of managers, not owners, of the nation's wealth.
Could ideological hatred of the 1% be the blinders Congress has strapped on us while it is busy in the back room getting felt up by the deep pockets?

[xfundy]

27. At least they're being honest.

That's incredibly hard for most cancervatives to do. They had to be sincere, IMO, to come out of that closet.

[Zorra]

29. Honest republican is an oxymoron.

If someone was honest, they would not be a republican.