Interesting New Poll Out ...
- Thread starter RLENT
- Start date
No. There are many places he doesn't identify with the hard right. Global intervention is certainly one of the big ones.
Yes thanks. I know that one, but he is pro life, anti illegal immigration, etc so I would think he would still be a considered a right winger.
In that sense maybe, and he was identified as a republican but differed on quite a few other things. Most of that was brought out in the last presidential debates. You find someone with his ideas and plays well to the camera, and I'll show you a winner.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
First off, you're playing pretty fast and loose with the commonly understood definition of "endorsed" ... I guess that really shouldn't come as a surprise tho' ...
What I did do was vote for what I perceived to be the lesser of two evils ... something that if I recall correctly, you perhaps may have even advocated at some point or another ... and I did it largely based on a single issue: avoiding the reinstitution of an even more belligerent foreign policy and war - likely with Iran, if not others ...
BTW - on that trashing of the Constitution thingie ... how many times did you vote for Bush ?
I've always wanted to right the ship ... but I do understand that's something that may have escaped those who are terminally dull ...
Lemme see if I understand this correctly: you're saying that you wouldn't be terrified of a third party that ran a Republican as a candidate for POTUS ?
Wow - that's really quite impressive ... not ...
ROTFLMAO ...
You're jumping the gun ... which clearly illustrates how deficient your understanding of the situation actually is ...
You're focused on personalities ... when where the attention really belongs is on the philosophical underpinnings of such a party ...
One establishes the philosophy which the party represents first ... and obtains agreement on that from like-minded individuals ...
This is known as "building a consensus" ...
Then the task becomes figuring out a platform and specific policies which flow from the philosophy, in light of, and modified by, current political circumstances ...
Finally, one makes a choice on who best represents that philosophy and would make the best candidate.
Of course, it may ultimately be the case that the establishment of such a party only happens in the context that an existing party morphs or further defines their platform for a greater appeal to a broader audience ...
Well, no ... I didn't shoot it down ... I simply expressed some reservations about a given individual.
But I do understand that you are evidently incapable of recognizing that, and differentiating that from "shot it down".
FWIW, I have reservations about a number of potential candidates - including ones I'd be inclined to support.
Back to you ...
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Certainly he would be by some ...
I haven't seen the poll, but it seems to me that what people hate isn't so much a party, as an attitude of intransigent refusal to even look for common ground. We know the two parties differ, they always have, and they've always managed to 'give a little to get a little' [IOW: compromise], but increasingly, that's not possible. They're acting like little kids: "You can't make me!" The Dems aren't innocent, [but their guilt lies in other arenas] but the problem is pretty clearly attributable to the Tea Party Repubs, who proclaimed a take no prisoners attitude from the beginning that makes compromise impossible.
That's what makes a third party so attractive: we don't like what anyone is doing right now.
Wow! Their guilt lies in other areas? Are you serious? No it doesn't, it lies right there in the same place with the Republicans' "You can't make me!" The comparison to little children is appropriate since liberals and children exhibit the same exact behavior when they want something. Exactly. They want something, they demand it, they think they should have it simply by virtue of them wanting it, they throw a fit if they are told no, and take an "I'll show YOU" attitude if they still don't get what they want.
The Tea Party "Rebubs" take no prisoners position "from the beginning" to make compromise impossible was in direct response to the Democratically controlled House and Senate's position of not even entertaining discussion on compromise. For the first time since 1995, Democrats had not just control of Congress, but dominant control, and they were determined to use that power as they saw fit. They used it, against the people's wishes, to bail out Wall Street, which spawned the Tea Party. Then they used it, against the people's wishes and without even discussions of compromise, for the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, which grew the Tea Party rapidly. They then used that power once again, against the people's wishes, to ram the Affordable Care Act down America's throat, with no compromise whatsoever, which solidified the Tea Party as a group to be reckoned with.
The Democrats first played the No Prisoners card in this poker game, and when the Republicans got a few more chips in the pot they had to play the same card to keep from folding. As a direct result of the Democratically controlled Congress under Obama and their, "You'll do as I say whether you like it or not," attitude, that has become the bread and butter currency of both political parties, and it's the American people who are holding the IOUs.
But please don't try and tell us the Democrat's guilt lies in other areas, because it doesn't. They, literally, started the no-compromise political stance.
Any idea of the number of Wall Street bankers and orchestrators of the fraud that caused the 2008 financial crisis? The one which spawned the Tea Party in the first place? None. Not one. These are bankers and financial big shots who make regular sizable political contributions and dine regularly at the Obama White House, which, incidentally, controls the Obama Justice Department, who is in charge of prosecuting these types of crimes. Not one.
And you're blaming Tea party Republicans for all this? Really?
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Being the astute political operator that you are, I'd sure keep that one firmly in mind if I were you ... no doubt it will a key factor in 2016 ...
Being the astute political operator that you are, I'd sure keep that one firmly in mind if I were you ... no doubt it will a key factor in 2016 ...
That Cruz was born in Canada? By that time all illegal aliens will be able to vote and the libs will whine to get him disqualified because he wasn't born in the U.S.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Heheheh ...
Well at least they would have the relevant facts correct, in terms of the location of Cruz's birth ... unlike the Obama Derangement Syndrome afflicted Birf-fer clown squad ...
Excellent!
Attachments
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Yup.
Not only that, but it's not working more as each day goes by ...
One that I read today (paraphrased):
"It isn't so much that we need a third party, as much as it is we need a real second party ..."
DC is the equivalent of a circular firing squad ...
The Tea Party was spawned by the Wall Street bailout? There is disagreement about when they actually began, and how, but they were in business before TARP, and the central theme was limited government [meaning lower taxes & less regulation] . The less taxation is how they chose their name, as a nod to the Boston protestors against taxation - the Wall Street bailout was just one government program they disliked. And the ACA was another, but their main desire is for the government to stop taxing & spending.
I don't know about the D majority in the House, [you probably have some good points there] but I do know that the Tea Party representatives elected in 2010 made it quite clear that they would not agree with anything Obama wanted, period. And they have stuck to that position, no matter what. Their mission is to neuter Obama, and they don't care what happens around that, or who gets hurt, as they are proving with the brinksmanship over the default scenario.
You think liberals display an attitude of "I want it, I should have it, and I'll throw a fit if I don't get it"? I think that's what the conservatives have been doing, particularly with abortion [they can't get the people to agree, so they write legislation for state governors to pass without any voting] and with every issue they don't have popular support for - they just don't accept defeat. When the majority of citizens disagree with their objectives, they simply find another way to pass the legislation they want. [And they have ALEC to write it for them.]
Please elaborate on the cause of the fraud that caused the 2008 financial crisis - I'm not sure I see what you're saying about whose fault it was?
I don't know about the D majority in the House, [you probably have some good points there] but I do know that the Tea Party representatives elected in 2010 made it quite clear that they would not agree with anything Obama wanted, period. And they have stuck to that position, no matter what. Their mission is to neuter Obama, and they don't care what happens around that, or who gets hurt, as they are proving with the brinksmanship over the default scenario.
You think liberals display an attitude of "I want it, I should have it, and I'll throw a fit if I don't get it"? I think that's what the conservatives have been doing, particularly with abortion [they can't get the people to agree, so they write legislation for state governors to pass without any voting] and with every issue they don't have popular support for - they just don't accept defeat. When the majority of citizens disagree with their objectives, they simply find another way to pass the legislation they want. [And they have ALEC to write it for them.]
Please elaborate on the cause of the fraud that caused the 2008 financial crisis - I'm not sure I see what you're saying about whose fault it was?
Yes and no. As an identifiable group, they weren't really in business before TARP, which became law in October 2008. The movement began, sort of, throughout the 1990s on the annual Tax Day protests, where by around 2001 some people began mailing tea bags into legislatures and other officials as a tangible protest against unreasonable taxation. But it wasn't organized or even identifiable at that time as a "Tea Party." Lower taxes was the initial theme of the early beginnings, but it wasn't the central theme when the party itself actually began.
Incorrect. Read on to find out why!
Some of the ideas that came out of the 2008 presidential primary campaign of Ron Paul added to the tea party's brewing, so to speak. The very first protests that seized upon the catchy name of "Tea Party" happened in NY State in January 2009, three months after TARP was signed, to protest the proposition by the governor of "obesity taxes," and people thought that would be a good opportunity to protest taxes and fiscal responsibility in government by showcasing TARP, and the soon-to-be-signed in February, the American Recovery and Investment Act (the Stimulus Bill).
Then, spurred on by the January 2009 protests in NY, Seattle Blogger Keli Carender, founder of The Seattle Son & Daughters of Liberty, in February of 2009 organized the first real protests against the Stimulus Bill. Although she did not use the Tea Party name, the protest was very much in the style and substance of those early beginnings of fiscal responsibility and lower taxes. What she organized, in four days, was the "Porkulus Protest" specifically to protest the Stimulus Bill, and she did it on Feb 16th, Presidents Day, the day before Obama was to sign the Bill into law. It was a small turnout, only 120 people, but that's pretty impressive on four days notice. Impressive enough to know that it struck a chord, and got people's attention.
Three days later on Feb 19th, with the chord being struck, CNBC News Editor Rick Santelli, live on TV from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, criticized the Obama administration's plan to refinance mortgages, which has been announced the day before. He said half-joking, half-serious that maybe they should have a "Tea Party" for the traders to dump the derivatives into the Chicago River on July 1st. Cheers from the traders on the floor, laughter from the hosts back in the studio. But in less than 12 hours there were Tea Party web sites organizing Tea party protests scheduled not for July 1, but for the 4th of July. And just like that, the Tea Party was born.
According to a Rasmussen Poll of the day in 2009, the Bush and Obama administration's bailout of Wall Street is what got it all started, and people overwhelmingly stated that federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they thought no one in Washington is listening to them. It was that latter point that was really the most important. It caused the movement to make enough noise so that Washington would hear them.
So yes, the Tea Party was spawned by the Wall Street bailout. If it wasn't for the bailout, the Tea Party very likely wouldn't have gotten any legs underneath it.
Yes, I know. But like I said, they took that attitude as a direct reply to the Democratically controlled Congress doing the same, exact thing. Having the Affordable Care Act rammed down their throats left a bad taste in their mouths, especially when it was done by a Congress and a President who were smug about it when they were doing it.
Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I think. I think that because I can see with my own eyes it's true.
I'm not sure what abortion has to do with any of this, and frankly bringing up such a red herring is kind of an adolescent-liberal thing to do, but if you look closely at the tactics used by the religious right wackos to sneak anti-abortion legislation into the fabric of daily life, you'll see it's precisely the same tactics used by the Gay Rights and other issues-oriented liberal activists. It's only the extreme right religious wackos who are engaging in such 'temper-tantrum, I'll show YOU' tactics, whereas the whole of liberocity engages in it as a matter of course. When liberals want something, they think they should have it, simple because they want it. At least with conservatives they at least make the attempt at rationalization for it.
I don't recall saying who's fault it was. I only pointed out that none of those at fault have been prosecuted for it. But since you brought it up, who's fault it was is plainly evident - it's the Money Men who's only politics are dollars, those conservatives and liberal elite alike who has bought and paid for Congress, and likely the president. The people who control Wall Street are neither Republican nor Democrat, as politics requires taking sides, and they make money with both.
The myth (and common mantra for some) is that, in politics, the conservative Republicans want to the rich to keep getting richer at the expense of the poor, but the reality is that the liberal elite Democrats want the same thing. The results have shown that to be unambiguously true, because it's been happening with disturbing rapidity regardless of who is in the White House or who controls Congress. Finance, insurance, health care, and Congress, all of the entities who touch each and every one of our lives on a daily basis, they are all in one great big incestuous bed, and the American people are picking up the room service tab.
Here is an excellent illustration of a bought and paid for government. This example is only for Texas, but it provides a bite-sized digestible chunk of the scope of what happens on a national scale. As the author of the piece, a Texas Democrat running for office notes, the very core of conservative economics is an unfettered free market to work its magic to move resources where they are most needed and are most efficiently used. Yet even with a Republican-controlled legislature, a Republican executive, and a majority (not in the article, but it's 71%) of conservative judges in the state, Texas doesn't have free markets at all. Not even close. Why? Because publicly elected officials who are elected to represent the public's interests are bought and paid for by private interests specifically to protect those private interests and put them ahead of the public's interests.
And the same thing is, and has been happening on a much larger scale in Washington, regardless of which party is in power. Obamacare is just one stupefyingly huge example of that, where the public gets worse health insurance at a higher cost, and the only people benefiting from it are the money men, no taking of political sides necessary.
Last edited: