The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Losonti Tokash]

Look. I know I am not the most popular guy around this forum due to being young, pessimistic and hyperventilating, but please: does anyone here think that this movement has any actual chances of success? As in, more successful then the Tea Party Movement?

We're doing our best. Again, what are you doing to support the movement?

[D.Turtle]

There's still the whole scratching my back, scratching yours, underhanded favors and the like, the network between the rich and those in power, pork barrel, and a whole lot of stuff. Even without having to finance their own pet politicians, the corporations and the rich will still have an undeniable influence over politics and governments. Because, well, the corporations and the rich are the ones that make pretty much everything.

Reforming campaign financing would help (a bit, a lot, a few?). But I think even with reformed campaign financing systems, you'd still see situations where united fruit companies would ask intelligence agencies to support coups in other nations cause foreign leaders are redistributing land from US corporations to peasant farmers or whatever.

Campaign reform could be huge.

There is a huge disconnect between the political class and the rest of the country with respect to wealth, etc. Thats because it takes a huge amount of time and money to run for office. Financing campaigns is a huge time sink, and one of the reasons the US houses of congress get so little done. Here is a good blog post on just what that means (also includes a number of links to other good articles about this aspect of US campaigns. When a campaign advisor says that 80% of a candidates job is raising money, and during campaigns entire days can be spent solely on the phone asking people for money, you know something is wrong.

[Akumz Razor]

Live stream of LA Police evicting Occupy LA:

http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/?watchLiv ... e-stream-6

[Lord Zentei]

Seems pretty peaceful so far.

The Oakland police department could learn a few things from these guys.

[Shroom Man 777]

Helps that they spent the last weeks cultivating good will or at least general decency.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Occupy LA, despite the problems with the fringe elements in the group, has maintained very positive relations with City Hall overall. The council has even drafted some resolutions in support of Occupy, though obviously not to the extent of letting them stay indefinitely. Even if the group cannot maintain permanent occupation, it doesn't have to disappear. Even temporary Occupy themed protest encampments periodically would help, if done regularly up through elections at least. If they were pre-planned events with rallies and teach-ins ans whatnot, they might make more headway than permanent occupation with less interaction with the surrounding populations.

[SpaceMarine93]

Look. I know I am not the most popular guy around this forum due to being young, pessimistic and hyperventilating, but please: does anyone here think that this movement has any actual chances of success? As in, more successful then the Tea Party Movement?

We're doing our best. Again, what are you doing to support the movement?

To be honest sir, I am not sure what I can do. I will find some way to do it.

[SpaceMarine93]

From BBC:

Occupy Los Angeles and Philadelphia raided by police

US police have raided Occupy Wall Street camps in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, arresting over 200 people and tearing up tent cities.

In Los Angeles, about 1,400 police officers took part in the late-night operation outside City Hall - two days after an eviction deadline had passed.

In Philadelphia, nearly all of the demonstrators left before the police started pulling down tents.

The evictions appeared to have been carried out without any major violence.

Over 150 protesters were arrested in Los Angeles, police told the BBC, while about 50 arrests were made in Philadelphia.

'Walk the walk'
Police in Los Angeles, some in riot gear, left the steps of City Hall just after midnight to begin breaking down the two-month-old camp.

Protesters who refused to leave were pulled out one by one and arrested by police.

One of the demonstrators was reportedly wrestled to the ground, with the crowd shouting: "Police brutality!"

Beanbag projectiles were used to remove the final three protesters, who were in a makeshift tree house, according to police commander Andrew Smith. No serious injuries were reported.


Occupy LA protesters stayed in the camp for two months
Some protesters sat in a circle on the lawn outside City Hall, their arms interlinked, saying they would rather be arrested than leave.

"It's easy to talk the talk, but you gotta walk the walk," Opamago Cascini was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

But by Wednesday morning much of the camp was deserted, with tents strewn over the grass.

Concrete barriers were put up temporarily around the park. By 05:10 local time (13:10 GMT) the park was clear of protesters, LAPD officer Cleon Joseph told AFP news agency.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said earlier he hoped to avoid the confrontations between police and demonstrators that have marred evictions in other cities.

Mayor Villaraigosa issued the eviction order, saying the camp was unsustainable because public health and safety could not be maintained.

In Philadelphia, police started breaking up the camp late at night after repeatedly warning the protesters to leave.

Most of the campers agreed to leave voluntarily, and dozens of them later staged a rally on a nearby street.

City officials earlier said the camp must be cleared to make room for a $50m (£32m) renovation project.

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have staged rallies in a number of US cities since the movement against inequality began three months ago.

Now they

[Shroom Man 777]

NEW YORK (AP) — For more than two months, they were open-air communes where people came to rebuild society and start a nationwide discussion on how to close the wide gap between the rich and the poor. But as Occupy Wall Street tent cities fade away, a growing number of protesters are pushing to put a clear message ahead of the movement.

Alan Collinge has his list ready — return bankruptcy protection to student loans. Bring back regulations that were removed from the Glass-Steagall Act. End corporate personhood.

"They should come up with a short term list of no brainer agenda items," said Collinge, wearing a huge sign in the rain at New York's Zuccotti Park calling for student loan reforms.

More than a dozen other protesters interviewed by The Associated Press also came up with a wish list of specifics to address what they say is corporate greed and economic inequality. The list of demands ranged from the simple — get corporate money out of politics — to the ethereal (make sure Washington politicians act with a moral conscience).

Asking Occupy protesters what, exactly, they would do to reform government and the financial system is a loaded question and a source of internal conflict. Collinge, 41, of Tacoma, Wash., said he has unsuccessfully lobbied Occupy's general assembly meetings in New York to develop a strong platform, but has been rebuffed.

"A lot of people, they think that this should be sort of a catchall" for every issue, he said, the goal being to expose the economic problems in the country, not solve them.

Other cities' movements have held meetings of committees with titles like "cohesive messaging" to discuss strategy, but haven't agreed on listing specifics as a movement. The greater purpose isn't to influence the government or the financial system through classic demands, but to foster broad cultural changes that will gradually empower people to stop depending on big corporations and Wall Street money.

"All the energy has gone into an outcry over economic conditions, with the hope that others will join us and pick up issues they care about," says Bill Dobbs, press liaison for Occupy Wall Street in New York. "Our best hope is inspiring other people to take action to bring economic justice."

Some observers and experts predict that Occupy groups may spend the next few months focusing on smaller actions while waiting for the summer when the Republican and Democratic conventions would give Occupiers a world-wide audience.

But ask around, and protesters who spent weeks living in encampments and talking about the country's woes have a clear idea of what they want.

A number have called for limiting campaign donations and getting big money out of politics. Some Occupy members want to limit the amount of money a person is allowed to give a politician. Others want to ban corporate donations specifically, or the number of campaign ads.

"How did Abraham Lincoln ever become president without a television set?" asked Ryan Peterson, an entertainment company worker from Chicago who lived for weeks in Zuccotti Park. Paul Lemaire, a 20-year-old visual arts student from Brooklyn, wants the two-party system eliminated.

The influence of money in politics is one of the greatest factors behind the gap between the superrich and the poor, said James Parrott, chief economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, which published a report last year on economic disparity. It shows "that they're very focused in understanding the root causes" of the country's economic issues, he said.

The call for tighter regulation of campaign contributions won't gain traction anytime soon. The Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United decision in January 2010, cleared the way for corporations to spend unlimited funds to influence elections, often using money from anonymous donors. The court struck down most of the so-called McCain-Feingold law that had set tight restrictions on such donations, arguing that government did not have the right to regulate political speech.

Campaign regulation, stopping wars that strain resources, halting corporate personhood — the spending power given to corporations in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling — and addressing higher education costs have emerged as key goals of the Occupy movement in Los Angeles. Organizers say they are now focusing on sharpening their objectives, as police moved in to shut down the two-month-old encampment this week.

"We've been collecting ideas, seeing what the priorities are, vetting and researching them," said activist Suzanne O'Keeffe, a member of Occupy LA's Demands & Objectives Committee.

Los Angeles member Mario Brito said the movement plans to pressure elected and bank officials for a moratorium on foreclosures, and said members would "occupy" bank lobbies, boardrooms and executives' homes to force the action.

In Minneapolis, five members of the Occupy MN "Cohesive Messaging Committee" gathered to talk strategy this week at a downtown coffee shop, asking that people attending recent General Assembly meetings fill out cards expressing broad themes that were important to them. The group entered the cards into a spreadsheet and found economic justice, democracy, education and campaign finance reform as the common themes.

Collinge, an aerospace engineer who later founded a website about problems with student loans, lists the congressional bill he wants passed to return bankruptcy protections to student loans. The Depression-Era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment banking, is another named law cited at the top of protesters' demands in cities across the country. Most of the restrictions that regulated the two forms of banking were repealed in 1999, and are blamed by many economists for contributing to the financial crisis in 2007.

Kalle Lasn, the co-founder of Adbusters, the Canadian magazine that helped ignite the Occupy movement, supports a 1 percent global "Robin Hood" tax on big financial transactions. Similar taxes and increases have been proposed for years, including the Obama administration's "financial crisis responsibility fee" tax proposal of last year, intended to raise $90 billion over the next decade.

As individual protesters and movements fashion a platform, experts and organizers warned that defining the movement more broadly keeps everyone in and keeps responsibility in the hands of the power brokers.

"They've achieved a lot by having the open ended process that they've had so far," said Parrott, the Fiscal Policy Institute's chief economist. "They should be selective in that there are some people who are trying to glom onto the stage that they've created" with ideas that aren't part of the main movement.

Will Birney, who left his job as a waiter in Westport, Ct., to join Occupy's New York movement, has one wish, although it can't be passed into law or regulated by the Treasury Department.

"I would instill a fair conscience, if people could look to morality," said Birney, 26.

He knows he's reaching, but says that's the point of the movement.

"I'm not even thinking we're going to get concrete solutions out of this," he said. "All I want is a change."

[Shroom Man 777]

This is awesome. Hypocritical Psycho Conservative Americans aren't restricted only to the digital petting zoos for Hydrocephalic Platypus Cuckolding Animals. Look ma, they're on TV!

The violent response to the Occupy movement from law enforcement in cities across America is shameful and calls into question the adherence of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee that government cannot interfere with the people’s “right to peaceably assemble or prohibit the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.” It is becoming obvious that mayors in larger cities have little regard for the constitutional rights of the protestors who have been clubbed, pepper sprayed, and sustained major injuries from tear-gas canisters fired by riot-clad police officers for peaceably assembling. Thus far, none of the protestors have been gunned down by the police but that does not mean there are not Americans panting to use firearms to stop the Occupy movement.

On Tuesday’s edition of Fox News’ The Five, one of the members of the panel suggested the occupiers should beware of gun-slinging Americans who oppose the Occupy movement. It is nothing new for Fox to encourage their listeners to consider 2nd Amendment remedies for any number of perceived grievances, but suggesting that Americans shoot peaceful protestors has crossed the line.

The Fox panel was discussing families in Arizona who posed for Christmas card photos with Santa Claus while the parents and children held a variety of firearms. Now, it is unclear what the relationship Christmas, Santa Claus, families, and machine guns is about, but perhaps in Arizona it is a custom to associate the birth of Jesus Christ with bazookas and AK-47s. One of the panel members, Greg Gutfeld, was commenting on how awesome it is that Americans have a love-affair with guns and how he likes that it “scares the hell out of visiting Europeans who already think we’re crazy people and they think my god, we’re never invading this country.” Gutfeld is correct; Europeans do think Americans are violent nut-jobs for the wild-west mentality that guns solve all problems, but he could not help but throw out a not-so-veiled threat at the Occupy movement. He continued that, “plus, it’s a reminder to all you Occupy Wall Streeters that if there is a revolution, the other side is better armed.” One of the women panelists added that, “we have better weapons.” Wait, what? Who said the Occupy movement was armed or considering a violent revolution?

Gutfeld misses the point of the Occupy movement and their peaceful protests to call attention to the crippling income inequality in this country. There have been no calls or hints of violent revolution from the occupiers and the bigger point Gutfeld, and indeed all of Fox News, misses is that the Occupy movement represents 99% of America. Gutfeld is certainly not a member of the one percent so his comment that the “other side” is better armed must refer to uber-wealthy Americans controlling the policies that are responsible for the income disparity between the 1% and the rest of America. However, there are ignorant Americans (Fox News viewers) who somehow perceive the occupy movement as a threat to conservative ideology and would begin shooting peaceful protestors if given permission from a fanatical conservative. Enter Ann Coulter.

Coulter has made some inflammatory comments about the Occupy movement recently, and none were accurate. She said, “I knew there would be mob uprisings again. They are demonic,” and “I guess it’s fun to destroy stuff; it’s lots of fun to just start randomly murdering people – this is the way it always is with mobs.” Then Coulter intimated she knew the solution to shutting down the Occupy Wall Street protests when she said, “Remember, it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good.” On Fox & Friends, they attempted to tie the alleged White House shooter to the Occupy movement by calling him the “occupy shooter” to impute the movement is armed and dangerous.

There has been a concerted effort by Republicans and their media outlet, Fox News, to cast the Occupy movement as thugs, mobs, and now insurgents since the movement began receiving media attention. The now-familiar law enforcement response of violent suppression of the protestor’s right to dissent and peaceably protest has not stopped the occupiers from exercising their constitutional right so apparently Fox News is inciting its viewers to take the violence to a new level by prodding them to use their “better weapons” on the protestors. The Fox News crowd knows many in their audience are frustrated and angry over an African-American man sitting in the Oval Office, and just need a little prodding to begin slaughtering anyone who does not subscribe to neo-conservative values.

It is tragic that the Occupy movement that is working for 99% of Americans is being portrayed as demonic mobs of insurgents waiting to have fun “randomly murdering people.” The hypocrites at Fox certainly did not portray armed teabaggers as demonic mobs when they gathered in a show of force to protest healthcare reform and instead labeled them patriotic Americans standing up to the socialist government intent on robbing them of their rights.

There is no doubt the Occupy movement frightens conservatives and Fox News. As the movement gains momentum and more Americans realize occupiers are making great sacrifices on behalf of 99% of the country, the movement will affect government policies that favor the ultra-rich. However, as the movement grows, Republicans and Fox News will ramp up the rhetoric against the protestors to insinuate a violent revolution is impending, and with the proliferation of guns in this country, it is a matter of time until gun-wielding maniacs take the Fox warnings to heart and slaughter peaceful protestors. Law enforcement, at the behest of mayors, have used violence to break up peaceful protests, but they have refrained from using firearms up to this point, and one hopes they stop all violent suppression of peaceful gatherings. Unfortunately, the conservatives at Fox News have no restraint and as they continue demeaning the Occupy movement with fallacious claims of mob violence, some fanatic will take their rhetoric to heart and kill protestors. Fox has learned from Syria, Egypt, and Libya that with careful fear-mongering, inciting violence against peaceful protestors eventually bears fruit and if there is violence, Fox will have played a significant role in murdering American citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Y'all city-slicking yahoo greenhorns better take care now when yer all peddling yer mealy-mouthed commie hootery, y'hear me? Cuz' if y'all cross me, then this here lickity spit secund amendment'll make sure that y'all get a prompt and proper ventilation on part of mah shootin' iron, boy.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Occupy UC Davis turns overtly socialist, calls for break with democratic party.

Occupy UC Davis protesters adopt resolution calling for break with Democratic Party

By David Brown
1 December 2011

On Tuesday evening, the general assembly of Occupy UC Davis passed a resolution denouncing the attack on Davis students, calling for a break with the Democratic Party and the construction of an independent social and political movement of the entire working class.

The resolution, the first of its kind adopted at an Occupy protest, lays out a clear political perspective to counter the growing attacks on protests against inequality in the United States. It comes a week and a half after the brutal pepper spraying of unarmed students protesting against rising tuition and inequality.

The attack on UC Davis students is part of a nationwide crackdown on Occupy demonstrators, organized by both Democrats and Republicans and overseen by the Obama administration. On Wednesday morning, police in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, both controlled by Democratic Party mayors, cleared out encampments. (See “Police attack Occupy camps in Los Angeles and Philadelphia, arresting 350”)

The resolution at Davis was adopted by about 70 students participating in the general assembly. It was presented by Eric Lee, a supporter of the International Students for Social Equality, and a member of a newly-formed committee established to mobilize broader support in the working class.

In addition to calling for a break with the Democratic Party and a turn to the working class, the resolution stresses the international character of the attack on workers and youth, and condemns the hypocritical posturing of American imperialism as a defender of democratic rights.

The resolution reads in full:

We, the students of UC Davis, condemn the brutal police assault and pepper spraying of fellow students, who were peacefully protesting on November 18.

This attack is part of a nationwide—in fact global—crackdown on demonstrations against social inequality and the domination of politics by the rich. While the American government invokes “democratic rights” to justify wars abroad, it responds to social protests at home with riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets.

While Chancellor Linda Katehi is directly responsible for the police raid, she was enforcing a nationwide campaign orchestrated by the entire political establishment. Throughout the country, Democratic and Republican politicians—including the Brown and Obama administrations—are dismantling public education, cutting social services, and undermining all our basic social and democratic rights. Some of the most brutal attacks on Occupy demonstrations have been carried out by Democratic Party mayors.

The way forward is clear: No support should be given to either of the two parties! The dictates of the banks and corporations can be countered only through the independent social and political struggle of the entire working class.

We call upon students and working people all over the world to support our struggle against budget cuts. Our fight is your fight! Right now, students and workers in Greece, England and Egypt are engaged in a common struggle.

The global protests that began in 2011 must be expanded to a mass movement of students and workers to defend our rights and finally put an end to the domination by the corporations and super-rich over political and economic life.

At the assembly, the only objection raised was a concern that addressing the wider problems would lead to a lack of focus on the local and immediate role that Chancellor Katehi played in the police assault on students November 18. The general assembly overall felt that the line ascribing direct responsibility to Katehi sufficiently addressed that concern.

“This is an important resolution—I’m glad it passed,” Lee said. “There are many political questions that have to be tackled if the protests against inequality are to be driven forward. There are definite efforts by the trade unions and other political forces to channel mass anger behind the Democratic Party in one form or another. There is a real danger that opposition will be co-opted or will disintegrate into shallow protest politics. This is only the beginning of an effort to fight for a fundamentally different political perspective.”

The United Auto Workers (UAW), which has unionized graduate students at UC Davis and other campuses, has been involved in conference calls with organizers at UC Davis and helped coordinate a protest of the UC Regents meeting on Monday. The protest was turned into a question and answer session with the “student regent” and successfully diffused. The Regents unanimously passed a budget that will lead to sharp tuition hikes.

In the wake of demonstrations on Monday, the Occupy Davis general assembly has focused much of its attention on the occupation of Dutton Hall, an administrative building on campus. The assembly approved a set of three limited demands, including the immediate resignation of Chancellor Katehi, the reform of the campus police, and a halt to fee increases.

These demands have also been supported by UAW Local 2865. The leadership of the local has recently passed into the hands of a “progressive” faction—the Academic Workers for a Democratic Union—but this has not altered its orientation to the Democratic Party. Their reformist coalition, called “Refund California,” asks the Regents and Chancellor Katehi to sign a pledge to support higher education by backing several Democratic Party measures.

In earlier discussions of the general assembly, supporters of the ISSE raised the objection that without political clarification, an occupation of the hall could easily become channeled into a protest directed at the UC administration and the Democratic Party.

So... thats probably going to hurt public support. America is deathly afraid of the s-word.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand, saying "Democrats are sellouts, we are the real left" might galvanize the core supporters of the left-wing even in its disorganized present state. So this might be beneficial to build up a long-lasting political movement if you "reclaim socialism".

[Lord Zentei]

Well, that's a horrible idea. The electoral system favours a two party arrangement, and any third party is doomed to do poorly. In the hypothetical event that they are successful, they'll split their side of the vote. There's a reason the Tea Party didn't form their own party proper and remained within the Republican fold: it was precisely because they were savvy enough not to split the right (actually, Rush Limbaugh threw his considerable weight against the proposal to form a separate party, and they listened).

Personally, I'm not overly fond of socialist policies (as some of you may have noticed), even though I sympathize with some of the OWS positions. So perhaps I should not be complaining - except this will undermine the moderates by splitting the "left", and empower the Republicans who are still under the influence of the Tea Party. They should be moving to strategically endorse specific candidates within the Democratic party instead.

[Phantasee]

I offer an example of something similar happening up here:

The Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney had over 200 seats in the House of Commons. Next election they had two. Where did they go? 50+ seats went to the Bloc in Quebec, but more importantly, 50+ seats went to the Reform party in the West. It took the better part of a decade but the Reform, later Canadian Alliance, ended up merging with what was left of the PCs and formed the present Conservative Party. Didn't take long before they had minority governments, and today they have a majority.

Canada is effectively a two party state, with the NDP being non players until recently, but I guess they've just taken the spot of the Liberals.

Change works on the right, it can work on the American left.

[Lord Zentei]

Canada also has a greater history of having functional third parties. Meanwhile, it's more common to see ideological shifts within American parties than new ones upsetting the two party order (the current incarnation of which has lasted for 150 years now).

[K. A. Pital]

I'm thinking about longer term than the electoral cycle and definetely longer than "just now!" I mean, isn't the "four-year short-sight" thing a typical accusation levied against the political system? That electoral cycles determine everything, electoral circumstances and bullshit like that. Which kills long-term thinking. Long-term planning.

Maybe it's just me being me, as usual. But I see OWS as an incubator for a new hardcore left in the USA. Or I hope so.

[Lord Zentei]

If they can maintain their momentum? Maybe. You won't easily change the minds of most Americans, even though they're angry with the current situation. A lot of it will depend on how disillusioned with the Democrats the mainstream left is in America when it comes to voting day next 2012, and how long it takes for the Democrats to react to this turn of events if that is what happens. They might well end up as just another fringe party cutting themselves off from the mainstream, especially if they try for too hardcore left wing positions. Best case scenario, they encourage the Democrats to mosey further to the left to crowd them out.

Or maybe I'm just worried about having American politics dominated by two parties that I can't relate to - a hardcore left-wing party and a far-right anti-intellectual party.

I honestly doubt that that would be a stable arrangement in the long term, though.

[Alkaloid]

You also have to consider that the entire political system and party structure of American politics had been trundling to the right for some time, all the tea party had to do was push it along. OWS aims require an almost complete reversal of that trend, and it may end up being easier to build a whole new party from the ground up than reverse that progress with the democrats.

[Lord Zentei]

Would it really? Some of the Democrats have been voicing sympathy to the OWS - and it would be a lot easier for them to get successful if they can tap into the Democratic political machine than trying to create their own rival apparatus.

[Alkaloid]

Or create your own apparatus and cherry pick the current Dems you want. I'm not saying that's the best way to do it, but it avoids the problem of the gobfuls of corporate cock the democrats are currently choking on, because that is what runs the political machine of both parties.

[Losonti Tokash]

I haven't seen any major support from Democrats, though they've certainly been coopting our language and claiming to fight for the 99% while passing more corporatist garbage, trying to censor the internet, and taking away our constitutional rights. Unless they're all secretly accelerationists, the best we can expect from them for the next few years is lip service.

[K. A. Pital]

Best case scenario, they encourage the Democrats to mosey further to the left to crowd them out.

If the Tea Party chose another path, that's what would have happened. The extreme right is definetely impacting the Repubs no matter if it is conscious enough to self-organize or not.

Or maybe I'm just worried about having American politics dominated by two parties that I can't relate to - a hardcore left-wing party and a far-right anti-intellectual party.

"Hardcore left" does not necessarily mean an extreme left position (like my own). It could be a hardcore social-democratic position. But hardcore as consistency - that is a trait which is desireable. Why the Democrats fail as a left-wing force? Since their left-wing positions are more talk than walk. They can't hold them consistently and enforce this consistency among several electoral cycles, which is the source of dissappointment from left-wing Democrat voters.

So if there's a moderate-left party (i.e. social-democratic), but which is consistent in its positions in the electoral cycle, in lawmaking (if it ever rises to enter Congress as a body or through independents at first), that would be "hardcore left" for America. A left-wing force which doesn't change or compromise its positions at the first fart from the Repub fucker currently running the Good Fat Party? I guess that would take one hell of a spine, considering the utter political decimation that befell all prior consistent left-wing forces and candidates in American political history.

[Phantasee]

Accelerationists?

[White Haven]

I'm not sure either, but it's producing the hilarious mental image of the Mythbusters accelerating the US political system to test for structural stability under increasing G-forces.

[Lord Zentei]

If the Tea Party chose another path, that's what would have happened. The extreme right is definetely impacting the Repubs no matter if it is conscious enough to self-organize or not.

Beg pardon? If the Tea Party had not remained within the Republican party, they would simply have siphoned off some of the votes, resulting in less of a landslide in 2010. The Democrats would have remained diminished and spineless. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're going for.

So if there's a moderate-left party (i.e. social-democratic), but which is consistent in its positions in the electoral cycle, in lawmaking (if it ever rises to enter Congress as a body or through independents at first), that would be "hardcore left" for America. A left-wing force which doesn't change or compromise its positions at the first fart from the Repub fucker currently running the Good Fat Party? I guess that would take one hell of a spine, considering the utter political decimation that befell all prior consistent left-wing forces and candidates in American political history.

A consistent social democratic party would be healthy - it's just that when you describe something as "hardcore left", I get worried.

That being said, it will be interesting to see what their platform turns out to be. It'll be a tough balancing act.

America really needs to get rid of FPTP.