I just googled OccupyPortland and it looks like the occupation protest in Portland and other places in the USA is largely about corporate influence in government stemming from the dependence of political candidates on financial support from corporations and the support of the media. I'm not sure if this is a correct interpretation or not, but it sounds like a good thing to protest about and an important thing to change.

The problem I often have with protest movements though is that it is easy to say what you are against and much more difficult to say what you are for. What is the solution to the problem of corporate influence on politics (not just in the USA but anywhere)? What are the protesters saying they want to replace the current system and how would they stop the same problems happening again?

Nope.  We're just fed up with our lives being influenced by Wall Street, even though we all don't own any damn stock.

Why should my life have the pain of some corporate gaining or losing points on the stock market?  It shouldn't.

And that my friends is what the occupations are about.  We want our lives not controlled by corporate greed.  Because it's starting to look like all the housing foreclosures, and all the job losses, are directly related to corporate greed and mistakes.

Quite a few of those occupiers....were layed off.  They don't have jobs.  Some are living off food stamps, and soup kitchens.

And Einstein, they are the 99%.  They are the poor.  They are the wretched.   There's like 99% middle class and poor americans.  and 1% rich assed tightwads?

if they are all like this, they are the weak. I don't know if you can stand 11 mins of this but it is most instructive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3QZlp3eGMNI

Bullhorn guy has made them repeat everything they hear on the bullhorn, and shut up and wave hand signals

Bullhorn guy has been approached about letting a Congressman speak.  Bullhorn guy does not want the Congressman to speak.

Bullhorn guy takes  a comment from "the Block?" to send the Congressman away. That seems to be popular and Bullhorn guy proclaims consensus.

There is dissent.  Bullhorn man takes a comment in favor of the address, and one against it, and calls for a poll.  The crowd seems divided.

Recognizing the crowd is divided, Bullhorn man decides that the option he put to a vote a few minutes before (shut up Congressman) is in fact the DEFAULT, and the opponents have failed to build consensus against it. That's why I say he wanted it.

Bullhorn man then shuts down everybody rising to speak on the issue, and instead of hearing them, berates them for ignoring the democracy they approved by an earlier vote--they are betraying democracy by speaking their minds!

That's why I find this instructive, there's no money changing hands, no social influence, no coercion, just one slick asshole with a bullhorn who gets them to agree, in the name of democracy, to repeat everything he says and shut up by order.  Has any corporation ever got you doing that?

According to sources, is not a valid arguement.  Whose the sources?  Members of Wall Street?  If the sources don't wish to be known, then I do not consider it valid information.  And you should know better than that.

> Einstein wrote:

> There are leaders... Organizers... and they are being paid to protest according to sources. They are coordinating the masses in manners that they are trained in for a long time.

> I could easily go out to these places in disguise, and in 2 hours have every one of them identified.

That is of course what you want to believe flint, because the truth is too hard for you to take....