Who wants to do what?

This poll is to determine how many of us want to do what. Our mission or missions so to speak. It is also a polling experiment. If you don't like the options presented, please check "other" and write in your suggestion in the discussion area. Then I will rewrite the poll and we will vote again.

Ray, could you provide a brief explanation of National Support Group? Thanks.
-Paul

Sure Paul. I see a national support group as a place where people can meet up with others sharing a similar goal. A place where they can discuss their options, with a good voting system to help them make decisions.

The focus of such a group would primarily be to help with the formation of other action groups.

I vote for both support group and petition. I think the group has laid the beginning of a groundwork for both.
Johanna

Everything but the third party but mostly an experiment in online democracy, all my life I've dreamed of this even before the internet was born(I thought we could use tv remotes) but when things were going well I could see that my fantasys were not as far fetched as I thought. But it can only really be developed by working on a real project and it don't come much more real than this,20 big topics subdivided into 2 hundred or more policy initiatives which would radically alter the politics of the entire globe!! That's some heavy sh,t as cheech and chong would say

Third party? Would it be more like an 7th party?

honestly.. I don't know... but I do firmly believe that if anything is going to actually get implemented it needs the support of the Occupy movements...

and for that to happen most of these discussions need to be done on the Occupy forums in solidarity with the movement ... otherwise we simply have 5000 or so supporters .. which won't get anywhere...

It's very difficult to get another political party going in the U.S. That's why they Tea Party didn't try it. I think we should get a list of grievances and make sure everyone in the government, from those in office to those running for office, to those serving in other capacities, like cabinet members and supreme court justices. This way, they can all see where we stand, and what we want.

I don't really think it's our job to come up with solutions. Our 'leaders' and the people who want to be our 'leaders' claim they have the solutions, so they should work towards that. Our job is to put people in office who will best represent us and what we believe.

I do like what the Tea Party did in the last election. Those who they felt did not represent them were challenged in their primaries. A good group of those who did not measure up to Tea Party standards were voted out, and a Tea Party candidate was put up in the general election. We can do this too, on both sides of the aisle.

To start a third party, we would need individuals already in office to move to our party. There is a large group that calls itself the progressive caucus, that might be willing to drop their party and join a Progressive Party.

Now I will go and vote in the poll, I will vote 'other'. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I would change the Grievances item to Manifesto, both for PR reasons as well as purpose. A manifesto based on a populist agenda has the ability to gain support across the political spectrum. Our strength is in numbers and should never focus on division, but instead to allow anyone to align with specific ideas.

It can be used as a measuring stick against an elected official's record in order to show which officials are truly representing the people versus a narrow group of wealthy constituents.

And just as folks like Grover Norquist hold candidates feet to the fire on tax policy, a manifesto can be used to lever a better discussion of the real issues during campaigns instead of typical nonsense.

And to further the idea of "sub-parties", a manifesto (versus an actual party) allows a large group of the population to demand a representative candidate whether Republican or Democrat, meaning our group could primary either side. Coming to terms with the reality of 99 is going to be hard for many, but a lot of folks currently misaligned with faux populism will want and need to be part of what is coming.

I haven't figured out yet who we ARE! I joined because I thought we were part of the Occupy movement, but I suspect I was misled. SERIOUSLY misled.

How about we figure out what in the hell we stand for before we do anything else. As far as I can tell, most everyone here (except me and one or two others) are socialist, communist, marxist or progressives. I know that OWS is trying to be everything to everyone, but I think until we figure out who we are we will never come to a consensus. I, a Libertarian, CANNOT EVER under ANY circumstances support socialism so if that's what you guys are shooting for, I'm outta here. If it's NOT what You (we) are about, how about putting some "labels" on yourselves so I know what I'm dealing with here.

I like everything except creating a third party. Top priority should be a national general assembly. We need to start some discussion about what the basics are that we want. My guess is this group runs the gambit of libertarian to socialist and everything in between so agreeing isn't going to be easy.

While I was writing this another post came in from a libertarian which I read before posting so I am adding the following to my post.

The libertarian said he had no common ground and would never find one with a socialist. Well I am a socialist who is exploring the zeitgeist movement a new idea which the poster may see as even further to the left. I'm willing to talk to libertarians but not if it will degenerate to name calling and I will have to admit I'd probably have to control my tendency to get angry just as much as anyone else but from the libertarians posts he would not be willing to do that. If I wrong I invite the poster to correct me.

Anyway based on that post I have to state even more firmly that we need to see if we can come to some agreement about basics or there is no point in moving forward. If we start that discussion online then we will have to beware of trolls who will join the forum simple to be disruptive.

We are all trying to not mislead anyone these days. I think what we are right now is simply a place for open discussion and exchange of ideas about how we can effect change in our society for the betterment of all of us (99%).

Over the weekend, this place got turned upside down when the founder, Michael P, decided not to cooperate with the group anymore. He is the original 99% Delegation guy and has his own website and FB page now (the99declaration.org).

We are discussing ways to proceed and learning from each other, both opinions and methods of operation, but haven't quite settled on a definite direction. Another web-site is in the planning stages.

That's the best I can offer right now.

-Paul

Under Reagan, I was a Republican. I stayed a Republican until they put the 2nd Bush up for President. I couldn't believe that was the best the party had, and if that was who they chose, I won't be a part of it. I changed to Independent, but the independents go no where. When Obama ran, I supported him and campaigned for him. I was selected to be a National Convention Selection Delegate at the Kentucky Democratic Party 2008 State Convention. A couple days before I attended, I changed to a Democrat, thinking I should since I was part of the convention.

Now, I'm a progressive, and a social libertarian. I don't understand why Republicans what a smaller, next to no government to control corporations, but a massive government to control what an individual does in his/her pvt life.

I call myself a progressive because both of the major parties disappoint me. They are all bought and paid for, and they represent those with the money, not those with the votes. I would like to change that. I support the OWS movement.

Exactly rborskie. To me when the Republicans call for less government (government of for and by the people) they seem to be calling for less control by the people, which will benefit corporations, or the the 1%.

At the same time, they call for bigger and bigger defense budgets. So who and what are they protecting?

I consider myself progressive, but what I really want right now is true democracy in this country, and the world. I don't see either major party representing that, not in the least.

Interesting rborskie that you call yourself a social libertarian. I never heard that term before and it might not be as much of an oxymoron as social anarchist to which I have refereed to myself at time. I wonder if by the we see the need for control on the economic sphere to make things equatable for everyone but believe in personal freedom as long as we do not harm another.