NYPD forcibly evicts Occupy Wall Street, banning Press

Well, the last time the Republicans were the liberal/progressive coalition was back in the 1910s, so that swinging, if it actually happens, takes a damn long time.

Merry Christmas!

I said I'm talking about "swinging" within the party.

So if there was a scale from 0 to 10 that ranged from "bleeding heart liberal" at 0 to "Hitler" at 10, the variation in the Republican line would be somewhere between 5 and 8. Now, they'd be at 8, because when they went to 6 during the Clinton years (when the Democrats were at 5,) they lost support, and so they went Right. Now, they're looking for the voters that sway between 6 and 9 by trying to get closer to 10 than the Democrats are to 5.

(I'll re-read this post tomorrow when I'm sober, so if I'm not making any sense, feel free to ignore this post.)

edited 27th Dec '11 5:24:55 PM by BestOf

Meh. In terms of actual economic politics Hitler should be somewhere around the middle of the scale.

The scale should be 0 (Marx) to 10 (Rand), at least in terms of economics...

I thought we were talking about social politics now, though?

Bumping because a friend of my mother made an interesting argument to me today. He said that there's exactly one thing that Occupy Wall Street could do in order to win, which they so far haven't done: boycott the banks that caused all the problems. He long ago moved all his money into a credit union, and he's benefited greatly from it. (He earned more interest in a month that he'd earned in the previous year at Wells Fargo.)

edited 4th Jan '12 9:46:14 PM by feotakahari

But wait, there was that day that they made a big fuss of where thousands of people switched to smaller credit unions. Obviously, it would help if more people did that, but it's not gone unnoticed that it's a great move to do. I'm not quite sure how that's affected the banks yet, but I don't really pay attention to financial news. (one also has to find the time to go down to the bank and get everything moved.)