We've been saying it all along - that the similarities outweigh the differences, both are populist (and that's okay!) and that everyone should throw social issues out the door and get together and have a beer (everyone likes beer!) and join forces to get what everyone wants. Can both sides agree? I mean, even while 'researching' and writing this I found disagreements in my own argument but I do think this is true:
But both are driven by a sense of moral outrage. Neither has a national leader, and both are unhappy with the Obama administration.
And I'm sort of annoyed at both groups constantly, although admittedly less at OWS because I'm sure that their social issues are more closely aligned with mine but ultimately I think both groups want less government and let me tell you, Crystal Bridges, having worked with the 99% for 100 years + now thinks that while more government is certainly flawed without it even more people would be fucked. And they already are. The problem isn't with a government it's with a morally corrupt governemnt and power corrupts. It could be made more local but then it becomes some trickle down shit... remember Ronald Reagan anyone?
Crystal doesn't have the solution or really any answers. She's too buy primping for her next blog post.
Stay strong populists! Crystal supports you!
The Interlopere: Walking both sides of the line.