Support NeoGAF

[Slayven]

Really? They've coalesced into a number of lobbying and fund raising organizations that spend millions of dollars on elections throughout the country and have a huge presence at state and local conventions. The problem with the occupy kids is that they had no sense of purpose or any clue as to how to achieve their unknown goals.

Hey they didn't want to be locked into one message.

 

[Jaladinozozo]

im just glad i was proven right a year later

just like w/ wikileaks

am i ever wrong?

You are wrong though. Occupy did succeed, and on a national level. If it never happened do you think you would ever see this kind of speech from Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us...mc=rss&src=igw

I know it means nothing coming from him since hes in deep with Wall Street as any president ever has been, but hey, at least they got everyone talking.

 

[eznark]

You are wrong though. Occupy did succeed, and on a national level. If it never happend do you think you would ever see this kind of speech from Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/u..._r=2&pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

I know it means nothing coming from him since hes in deep with Wall Street as any president ever has been, but hey, atleast they got everyone talking.

yes?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/obama-speech-convention-a_b_122272.html

 

[XMonkey]

Really? They've coalesced into a number of lobbying and fund raising organizations that spend millions of dollars on elections throughout the country and have a huge presence at state and local conventions. The problem with the occupy kids is that they had no sense of purpose or any clue as to how to achieve their unknown goals.

You said massive impact. I'm not seeing it, sorry. If anything they're now a liability at the national stage for the GOP and I feel sorry for anyone living in areas where Tea Party candidates have gained a local edge.

The comparison to Occupy is pretty specious, imo. The original Tea Party got co-opted to hell and back by the GOP after Obama got elected. If Occupy had the same kind of financial backing that the Tea Party got by acquiescing to the GOP, they might be in the same place.

But honestly, Occupy never sought to take the slow, local politics route (even if I might agree with that notion that is the smart way to go). They don't like Democrats the same way the Tea Party likes the GOP so there's that too.

 

[RyanDG]

You are wrong though. Occupy did succeed, and on a national level. If it never happened do you think you would ever see this kind of speech from Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us...mc=rss&src=igw

I know it means nothing coming from him since hes in deep with Wall Street as any president ever has been, but hey, at least they got everyone talking.

So a speech - that has no immediate impact on policy and doesn't represent an actual shift where it matters - constitutes a win? Especially from a president who is as beholden to special interests as those he demonized throughout his campaign?

I'm confused how people justify the 'goal posts' in terms of "wins".

 

[eznark]

You said massive impact. I'm not seeing it, sorry. If anything they're now a liability at the national stage for the GOP and I feel sorry for anyone living in areas where Tea Party candidates have gained a local edge.

The comparison to Occupy is pretty specious, imo. The original Tea Party got co-opted to hell and back by the GOP after Obama got elected. If Occupy had the same kind of financial backing that the Tea Party got by acquiescing to the GOP, they might be in the same place.

But honestly, Occupy never sought to take the slow, local politics route (even if I might agree with that notion that is the smart way to go). They don't like Democrats the same way the Tea Party likes the GOP so there's that too.

So you've never heard of Club for Growth?

 

[XMonkey]

So you've never heard of Club for Growth?

Not really, no. Tell me of their massive impact.

edit - Ok, so they're the PAC who got a lot of the freshman House members elected in 2010. That worked well for the GOP by putting Boehner in tough spot after tough spot during the debt crisis last summer and made Republicans look like terrible obstructionists in the eyes of the public, paving the way for Occupy to influence the media narrative and switch the spotlight to income inequality. They were also started in 2002 so I wouldn't say they're really a Tea Party-created thing, even if they're funding Tea Party candidates.

 

[Enron]

I'm not really a fan of the Tea Party, but XMonkey is totally wrong when he says he doesn't see what impact they've had. Anyone that even follows politics just a tad would have known otherwise. Whether or not that impact is positive, well, that's another question. But you cannot deny their impact. Just ask the republicans that lost their districts because of tea party money and candidates. Go ask some of those bluedog democrats that got tossed out in 2010.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Yeah Tea Party "achieved" their goals of changing things. Even though it wasn't the way they wanted to change it. Though I will admit as of now the grassroots movement is gone.

There were two reasons why Occupy didn't have as much success. First being that because the Occupiers did not like the Democrats. They knew they were at best the slightly lesser of the two evils and stuck with it. And they suffered because of that. They also had no idea what to do once they were stomped out of Wallstreet and the Capitol.

The second reason was because the movement was so unorganized. People argued that it had some benefits for that and in a way it did because it truly felt grassroots. But as soon as they were banished from Wall Street, it all went to shit. The movement was so unfocused. I saw it divide into three groups: the more serious occupiers moving onto townhalls and what not in other cities, the unorganized ones doing a bunch of random shit that was so unpromoted the people they were protesting with didn't even know about it (e.g. union protests), the

Spoiler

loons

that came back to Wall Street when it was all long and over. They needed direction, they needed a leader or at the very least an elected committee within the group to direct where the movement was suppose to go.

If you want to change things their are only two ways: get into the system or revolution. One of them involves a slow process but gradually brings change. The other is a quick process but is incredible dangerous and is a desperate act that should only be used when there is no other hope.

Occupiers should have shaved their beards, put on a suit, and run for office.

 

[XMonkey]

I'm not really a fan of the Tea Party, but XMonkey is totally wrong when he says he doesn't see what impact they've had. Anyone that even follows politics just a tad would have known otherwise. Whether or not that impact is positive, well, that's another question. But you cannot deny their impact. Just ask the republicans that lost their districts because of tea party money and candidates. Go ask some of those bluedog democrats that got tossed out in 2010.

I didn't deny they had any impact. Please point out where I did. Of course I understand what they accomplished in the House (although it ended up biting the GOP in the ass). eznark said they had a massive impact (and still do) and I don't agree with that at all.

The GOP used the Tea Party to shape the national debate following Obama's election to brilliant effect. But, I don't think it was in their grand plan to have them gain a sizable representation in the House and start fucking things up for them ala the debt ceiling fiasco.

 

[akira28]

The Dems didn't want to use the OM like the Republicans piggy backed the Tea Partiers. (Partially because it was a horse that wouldn't be ridden.) Tea Party was ultimately willing to play that role to any GOP who wanted to say what was needed to be said. It was about getting people into office. Occupy wasn't really about that at all. OM was typically too cynical and not willing to make that kind of exchange with already established political coalitions. They wanted to hear something new from people who had nothing new to say, in a year when no one was willing to offer up anything other than speeches.

The difference I think, is that OWS and OM could happen again. The Tea Party, not so much. Occupiers weren't successfully used as political tools, they just didn't make a real dent in the armor of the establishment. So they broke like a wave, but can easily come back again if the right vulnerability was found. The Tea Party was used to prop up super-Conservatives with political aspirations who ultimately came to Washington and became establishment players. Very few stayed true to the small government, non-intervention stance of the Tea Party except when it comes to making local cuts, or going after tiny government expenditures for a few million dollars here or there. Which obviously wouldn't do shit to the fiscal bogeyman that is the federal deficit.

Where Occupy has to learn how to be more effective at making change, Tea Party, I would expect, would have learned not to be such useful catapults to power.