General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Brutal Suppression Of OWS Proves That The Rich & Business Will Tolerate No Dissent [View all]hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Public spaces are public, for all of the public to use, not for a part of the public to monopolize.
Further, Democrats are not gonna support a movement which is seen as stupid.
I am just guessing that the vast majority of the country does not support, and did not support the "Occupy movement".
But for myself, I saw the movement as kinda stupid. I mean, it seemed to start out good, although I thought the "99" was the wrong number, and have said so, many, many times here. But that was the first error, in my view. Like the 2% is on the same side as the 98%. Like the 3% is on the same side as the 97%.
Second, what was their point again? Their whole purpose seemed to be, and what was cracked down on, was that they wanted to create some permanent tent camps. What is the point of that? It just seems like an obnoxious minority being obnoxious until they get their way. That is not how democracy works, or how it is even supposed to work. You need to win the majority to your side with your dissent. If you just annoy the majority with your obnoxiousness, then yes they will be happy to see you swatted down, but it is the 99% that is swatting you down, not the 1%.
Because Gerrymandered or not, in order to win elections, like we did in the past (imagine FDR or LBJ complaining about Gerrymandering - LBJ won Kansas by 54 to 45 and Idaho by 59-49 and Utah (!!!) by 55 to 45) by getting those conservative people to vote for our side. If we really are "the 99%" then it shouldn't matter if a district is Gerrymandered, because you cannot Gerrymander a district in any way at all to get the 20% to defeat the 80%.
Okay, except in Kansas where the 1% probably makes up a majority of voters in JoCo. (I exaggerate a little bit for purposes of humor - just a little bit.)