General Discussion

Caretha

(2,737 posts)

71. I agree with you about this -> "OWS isn't interested in electoral politics"

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:24 AM

Apr 2015

But you are incorrect to compare OWS with anarchism. OWS was a ground-up populism movement. A movement to show that no matter what party you affiliate yourself with, you are not part of the 1%, and as long as the economy is run by the elite, there will be no way for you to have any economic advantage.

The OP is trying to twist what OWS was about, and she is way off in some fantasy make-up thingy to prove "what point", I don't know, but I do know this, it wasn't about right vs left, or Dem vs Repub.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 99% is not valid percentage to be using... [View all] boston bean Apr 2015 OP

Hear! Hear! BlueCaliDem Apr 2015 #1

-1 L0oniX Apr 2015 #37

I think they are referring to those voting against their interest betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #2

So, the 1% isn't really the 1% either? nt boston bean Apr 2015 #3

OWS is an anarchist movement that was able to get some dems to adopt its memes betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #4

Everyone who uses the percentage meme... boston bean Apr 2015 #5

52% of voters disagree, but there eligible non-voters that may well agree betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #6

Oh, so 99% of people who vote agree on one issue? boston bean Apr 2015 #8

No 99% own less than 1% and have less political influence than 1% betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #9

99% of people can't agree on that.... don't agree on that... and have a different idea boston bean Apr 2015 #15

Doesn't matter whether they agree. It is a statistical fact meant to highlight the problem of betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #21

I'm pretty sure most LGBT do vote democratic... boston bean Apr 2015 #30

I agree with you about this -> "OWS isn't interested in electoral politics" Caretha Apr 2015 #71

Anarchism: a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint brooklynite Apr 2015 #76

Pfft Caretha Apr 2015 #81

!% of this country's population controls (aka "owns") 40% of its wealth. The Republican KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #7

Oh, so being against racism, sexism, and homophobia boston bean Apr 2015 #11

That's right. Republicans use racism, sexism and homophobia to divide the KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #18

So, women, minorities, LGBT need to take a back seat here. boston bean Apr 2015 #19

Sigh. "You folks". Please proceed - nt KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #23

Are you trying to sow division? Why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time? Comrade Grumpy Apr 2015 #29

Why are you asking me? I'm responding to arguments boston bean Apr 2015 #31

Snark much? Caretha Apr 2015 #72

The Communist Party of the USA was at the forefront of the civil rights KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #43

It's a question that in the asking reveals that the asker knows zip about the issues deemed 'social' Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #48

It sounds like you're suggesting gollygee Apr 2015 #60

I apologize if I gave that impression. Of course, Dems fight racism, sexism and KingCharlemagne Apr 2015 #63

The point of wedge politics is to place it such that there are more of us on this side. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2015 #10

The 99% is an economic group. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #12

Is part of this 99% is supporting Warren, Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley? boston bean Apr 2015 #13

Do you support LGBTQ rights? CJCRANE Apr 2015 #14

Sure as hell I do. But I'm for damn sure that no where near 99% of people in this country do. boston bean Apr 2015 #17

Do you support the right of all poor, working class and middle class people CJCRANE Apr 2015 #20

Sure I do. But do you? boston bean Apr 2015 #24

The 99% is just shorthand CJCRANE Apr 2015 #26

Does it include, women, LGBT, minorities and the particular issues they face boston bean Apr 2015 #27

It includes everyone who is not part of the 1%. nt CJCRANE Apr 2015 #42

I'll ask again: boston bean Apr 2015 #44

It's a label, not a strategy. But econonic empowerment of the "99%" by default will give more power CJCRANE Apr 2015 #45

Still not an answer to my specific question... but I guess this is as good as I will get boston bean Apr 2015 #46

You're making a category error. "African American" is a label. "Gay" is label. The "99%" is a label. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #47

And when things weren't so lopsided, women and minorities and LGBT faced boston bean Apr 2015 #49

I didn't say that. It's one struggle of several overlapping struggles. CJCRANE Apr 2015 #50

Words mean things. An identity is not a lable. Jesus. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #51

As per my other reply CJCRANE Apr 2015 #53

If you knew anything about LGBT and women's politics, you would know how specious your argument is. Bluenorthwest Apr 2015 #58

Downstream here in this thread, I am basically accused of being against wealth equality.. boston bean Apr 2015 #62

Black women make far less than White women. Why not remove them from the "Women Group" Bonobo Apr 2015 #69

But it is an economic group FRAMED as in opposition to "the 1%", which is where this breaks down... brooklynite Apr 2015 #77

Rec a whole lot treestar Apr 2015 #16

I think maybe it's a slogan for trying to build class consciousness... Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #22

That is what I am trying to get too. boston bean Apr 2015 #25

It means the middle class and poor should unite to take power from the super-rich Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #28

Do you think like others above that social issues are what is preventing boston bean Apr 2015 #33

I didn't read every single comment by other people posting in the thread. Cheese Sandwich Apr 2015 #52

You don't like it when people dismiss minority and womens rights as a non-issue betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #32

Where have I delcared it a non issue? boston bean Apr 2015 #34

You called it a meaningless slogan betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #36

The slogan is, the issues are not. boston bean Apr 2015 #39

You don't get the slogan. Don't use it betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #40

Who is insulting anyone? My pointing out that 99% of the people in this country boston bean Apr 2015 #41

We know who's side you are on in the fight against wealth inequality. n/t PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #56

And whose side is that? nt boston bean Apr 2015 #57

If 99% agreed with you you'd be happy with that % ...right? L0oniX Apr 2015 #35

Specific issues LOoniX. Thought that was obvious... boston bean Apr 2015 #38

Would require something we obviously lack as humans, agree.... AuntPatsy Apr 2015 #54

it appears to me as though some here PowerToThePeople Apr 2015 #55

99% is a perfectly valid percentage to be using truebluegreen Apr 2015 #59

Sad but true LostOne4Ever Apr 2015 #61

99% makes the intended point perfectly. It is rock-solid icon for that purpose. GoneFishin Apr 2015 #64

Yes, the 99% does have people in it who disagree with us, but we know what's best for them alarimer Apr 2015 #65

The term 99% is not the name of a political party lunatica Apr 2015 #66

I strongly disagree. F4lconF16 Apr 2015 #67

99% is a reference to financial status. nt Bonobo Apr 2015 #68

100% of us need Trillo Apr 2015 #70

The percantage is off. raouldukelives Apr 2015 #73

"Centrists" were the ones that told gays to shut-up about marriage rights. Marr Apr 2015 #74

Nail meet head! Caretha Apr 2015 #82

Hillary Clinton quickly rose to membership in the 1% and is therefore DISQUALIFIED to serve the 99%. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #75

sex panther "60% of the time, it works every time" NM_Birder Apr 2015 #78

In purely economic terms hifiguy Apr 2015 #79

It is about wealth and power, not political parties or leanings. Jamastiene Apr 2015 #80