|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The voter base pushing Trump seems to have a lot of overlap and shared goals as the Tea Party base.A lot of more mainstream Republicans will have a hard time supporting a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt without something solid to go on.Take another look at their voters. They were chanting, "lock her up", at the GOP convention whenever Clinton's name was mentioned. So far as the vast majority of Republicans are concerned, based on right wing media fiction, Hillary Clinton has already been 'proven guilty' of treason. If she is elected and their GOP representatives don't impeach her the base will never be able to accept it.Possible. Depends on how many Representatives think their support depends only on the hard-core base and on how much they think they'll lose based on slow walking it with more investigations and hearing vs how much they think they'll lose with a guaranteed to fail impeachment attempt.
If Trump loses big, will catering to his most rabid supporters really be Paul Ryan's first move?
Which Tea Party base? The Tea Party actually started with a Libertarian bent - Ron Paul was their darling and arguably started it. Since then many of the more recent Tea Party groups have all sorts of anti-free-trade vibes, which is pretty much the polar opposite of Libertarian economically. (Some Libertarians lean isolationist on security issues - but not trade.)
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.
We're only going to see meaningful third-party support by voting in small elections and building up greater advocacy to achieve proper electoral reform.
I would never vote for a third-party presidential candidate, but a third-party congressperson? Maybe.
This.
I, for one, don't "actually" know anyone in this thread.
I do know a bunch of labor activists, mostly paid staffers oddly enough, who are Hillary supporters.
I think Sanders would have an easier time. His campaign promises weren't and I promise thing. They were...I would like to do this, but realistically that won't happen. I can only try to do this, but you have to elect others who will also allow this to happen.
Those types of promises are easy to keep. In addition, he seemed FAR more easier to compromise with in the past than others have been.
Which Tea Party base? The Tea Party actually started with a Libertarian bent - Ron Paul was their darling and arguably started it. Since then many of the more recent Tea Party groups have all sorts of anti-free-trade vibes, which is pretty much the polar opposite of Libertarian economically. (Some Libertarians lean isolationist on security issues - but not trade.)
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.
How about the Tea Party that actually exists and has largely taken over the Republican party, not some idealization that had little clout and really only existed for a few months, maybe a year at most before being overwhelmed by the one we know today?
It's like someone mentioning the Republicans and being asked "Do you mean the anti-slavery party?"
I think the Tea Party is a very ODD thing. In the beginning it was NOT Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, it was actually something a LOT of people saw as appealing to them. Of course, it was more a thing against the big political players in general than something specific in the beginning. I don't think it was particularly libertarian, though you had MANY of them in it.
Then, it got hijacked by Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and others and took a sharp right turn which basically isolated everyone who was NOT ultra conservative.
It sort of makes me upset with that. In the beginning it was not organized, and was really just a thought that had MANY people of MANY different ideologies attached to it. However, once it got hijacked it got turned into some weird Anti-government, ultra conservative, movement that I think is repulsive to 60-75% of the original supporters of the original Tea Party idea.
I thought it had many good concepts in the beginning...now days...I find most of their ideas and concepts worse than Trump...and I find Trump pretty darn bad (Own opinion, Trump probably appeals to some who like his ideas on these boards...those ideas just are not Mine).
|
|
I'll definitely agree that most current Tea Party groups basically are just far right groups who stole the "Tea Party" moniker, but there are some Tea Party groups which are still more like they were the first couple of years. (The first was still less than a decade ago after all.)
But yes - shortly after the 2010 campaign the Republican establishment started to take it over, and even before that the term had started being hijacked by the far right wing.
Though, while it was especially fast in this case, political terminology changes pretty rapidly.
Ex: "Liberal" used to mean (at least economically) what "Libertarian" means now. (I only know because the forward of Road to Serfdom which was written 20yrs later explained so that when the book mentioned "Liberal" several times meaning the 1930's version that the reader wouldn't be confused.)
I would have preferred someone a bit more liberal as a choice. I think Hillary may be underestimating the republican dislike of her. Just because a faction of Republican voters hate Trump doesn't mean they like Hillary. If the more "moderate" Republican voters stay home, and the hardcore Bernies supporters do as well, Hillary may not be able to defeat Trump."May not", sure. It's politics. Anything can happen.
Frankly, I doubt many of the hardcore Bernie supporters would vote for her unless she admitted she was a corrupt pawn of wall street and promised to resign in January. Even if she'd picked Elizbeth Warren for VP. Anything less would just be another Hillary lie. Even that probably would be.
Most aren't that hardcore, of course. Most would have switched with a Warren pick. Of course, most will switch anyway.If moderate Republicans stay home, she wins. This is a play for centrist independents, not for actual Republicans. She'll get some. And she'll sweep Democrats, despite the Bernie Bros. She'll win African-Americans by close to Obama's margins and Hispanics by even more. She'll win women by a landslide too.
Trump will dominate among white men. Especially older white men. But to steal from Lindsey Graham, there aren't enough angry old white men left.
If Trump doesn't get a ground game campaign up and running and can't organize it better then he ran the convention, he's going to lose in a landslide.
I mean us 'Bernie Bros' did just get a pretty huge email leak confirming that the suspicions of corruption and election rigging were true - something that would probably turn off any group of voters - but please continue to trot out the tired retread of the 'Obama Boys' pejorative.
You do realize that the article you linked proves my point, not yours?There have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play.No, there have not. Due to how our voting works there have always only been two parties of consequence.This is incorrect. Just one example.
Unless 'of consequence' is meant to say 'winning a Presidential election'. ;)
Not how I read it, but then, that's part of the fun. *grins* However, the big take-away I got from it was the point that the major parties absorb the driving force behind a sufficiently noisome 3rd party candidacy into their own platforms, to wit Ross Perot's bids for President. Since then deficit reduction became an election item/platform plank, at least for a while.
Winning a Presidential election. Holding a majority in either the House or Senate - or even a significant minority. Winning governorships - there have actually been a few governors in the past. Often Independent, which isn't quite the same.
Something other than merely existing. If your thesis is that there used to be multiple parties at play but there aren't now, then there has to be something that distinguishes them. Multiple parties exist now. They're just not capable of holding any real power.
If you've got counter-examples, tell us which parties and when.
That's quite a massive expectation to hold, far above what my point was. Lets me know the expectations. Socialists held some 50 dozen mayorships throughout the U.S. prior to WW1, but that's not the scale being sought out.
To the point:
21 3rd party gubernatorial wins and 19 Senatorial campaigns won since 1900. It's not much, but it does happen. Here. Note that Independents are lumped in with 3rd party on wiki, which seems reasonable.
Gubernatorial wins since 1900, not counting Independents:
- 1902, Silver-Democratic Party, John Sparks, Nevada. Re-elected in 1906.
- 1908, some electoral alliance between Democratic and People's State parties. Ashton C. Shallenberger, NE.
- 1910, Lincoln-Roosevelt League, Hiram Johnson, CA. Founded or co-founded the Progressive Party in 1912, becoming Teddy Roosevelt's Vice Presidential pick, finishing 2nd (and beating the Republicans) in the Presidential race that year. Re-elected as governor of CA in 1914 as a Progressive candidate. Won Senate seat in 1916, serving as Senator until 1945. Sadly, he became a Republican circa 1920.
- 1916, Prohibition Party, Sidney Johnston Catts, FL.
- 1930, Farmer-Labor Party, Floyd B. Olson, MN. Re-elected in 1932, 1934.
- 1934, Progressive Party, Philip La Folette, WI. Re-elected in 1936.
- 1936, Farmer-Labor Party, Elmer Benson, MN.
- 1936, Nonpartisan League, William Langer, ND.
- 1942, Progressive Party, Orland Loomis, WI.
- 1990, Alaskan Independence Party, Wally Hickel.
- 1998, Reform Party, Jesse Ventura elected, MN.
Senatorial wins since 1900, not counting Independents:
- 2006, Connecticut for Lieberman, Joe Lieberman.
Congresscritters, since 1900, not counting Independents:
- 2010, Lisa Murkowski won as a write-in Republican candidate, AK. Mentioned on the merits of a write-in election win, not her party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".
I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s+!+ty followers.
I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.
Out of curiosity, what's wrong with Kaine as her VP pick?
I'll let Jon Oliver answer the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with him is less "he's boring" and more "he wants to limit abortions, supports the TPP, and is even further right than Hillary Clinton". But, y'know, boring rice cooker is bad too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't Bernie's fault
Reluctant caveat: While Bernie initially took a very strong stand against the ugly members of his fanbase, his campaign really backed off on that later on when votes started to get more crucial. That was disappointing. They all-but-endorsed the worst elements of their movement.
Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".
I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s%$$ty followers.
I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.
Thanks a LOT.
You know what I like about Bernie...he actually IS able to compromise and figure out solutions typically.
He seems MORE honest than Clinton OR Trump (actually, this alone would be the sole reason to elect him).
He knows his ideas are crazy wild out there and have no chance in heck of being accomplished typically, but after giving his ideas he gives the realistic approach of what probably really would happen and how compromise and negotiation can bring in both sides of the equation for a better world.
As far as being that term you called Bernie supporters...
You do know the symbol of the democrat party...right?
Though I'm not so sure they'd enjoy it being made into a hat.
That's quite a massive expectation to hold, far above what my point was. Lets me know the expectations.Winning a Presidential election. Holding a majority in either the House or Senate - or even a significant minority. Winning governorships - there have actually been a few governors in the past. Often Independent, which isn't quite the same.
Something other than merely existing. If your thesis is that there used to be multiple parties at play but there aren't now, then there has to be something that distinguishes them. Multiple parties exist now. They're just not capable of holding any real power.
If you've got counter-examples, tell us which parties and when.
The expectations are, broadly, being a position of significant influence in national-level politics. Since we're talking about third party viability in the context of a presidential election, or more generally, issues of federal policy regarding the current candidates for president and the directions they intend to take the policy, it makes sense to define "viability" in term of being able to influence that policy.
So, the presidency,.... that I grant. That's basically the policy-making job for the United States.
Senators,.... not so much. If you look at how much the average senator manages to accomplish during their six-year term, it's not very much -- and the main way to avoid that is to caucus with other like-minded junior senators. (Ted Cruz is an illustrative example here; he's a powerful politician not because he's the junior senator from Texas, but because he's the de facto Senate spokesman for the Tea Party -- you know, actually representing a significant voting bloc.)
Congressmen, of course, are even less powerful since their vote is divided so many more ways. One congressman among 435 is at best a token, at worst an annoyance. That's not even enough to be worth courting as a coalition partner.
So I guess I'm not sure what your point was. You mentioned earlier that "[t]here have been multiple times in US history where there were multiple parties at play," so I assumed that you were prepared to show times where third-party candidates actually, you know, played. And you've not done so.
Basically agreed, though I'd stress that if some third party could hold enough Senate or House seats to be a noticeable voting bloc, that would count. But that hasn't happened.
Agreed. It's not even like that is an unreasonably high hurdle to clear. Since 1980, the most lopsided the Senate has ever been is 59-41, so a voting bloc of ten third-party candidates would likely be enough to force a coalition majority.
But since 1950, there hasn't been two third-party candidates from the same party, as far as I can tell. This isn't even "at the same time," this is EVER.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.
There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.
Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...
By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean us 'Bernie Bros' did just get a pretty huge email leak confirming that the suspicions of corruption and election rigging were true
No, you didn't. You got a scant handful of bits and pieces of evidence that certain people within the party might have personally favored one candidate over the other (SHOCK), but nothing that indicates actual election rigging.
You guys just really, really want to find something external to blame your loss on. You lost because your candidate's campaign wasn't popular enough. That's all. Learn from it and move on, and vote like a responsible adult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".
I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s*$$ty followers.
I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.
The accepted term for this subgroup of people is the alt-right.
|
The accepted term for this subgroup of people is the alt-right.Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".
I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s*$$ty followers.
I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.
Can we get an alt-delete instead?
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.
Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...
By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we get an alt-delete instead?
The accepted term for this subgroup of people is the alt-right.
there is no ctrl
|
|
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.
Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...
By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.
I actually didn't even think that the 2002 Koch group was even related to the 2007-08 Tea Party groups - just that they happened to have the same name. (Not precisely an unique name for an anti-tax/big gov group.) Though they later meshed.
I will say though, while early Tea Party & Occupy Wall Street agreed in being anti-crony capitalism, their proposed solutions were basically the opposite. Tea Party was generally to have less gov, Occupy was to have more gov. (Plus Occupy made a big mess - while one thing I liked about early Tea Party was that they cleaned up their own messes.)
I don't like either of them anymore. Both were mostly taken over by the crazies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it.
Rich people using angry rhetoric to stir up support to get people to vote against their own best interests is a tradition as old as america itself.
I don't like either of them anymore. Both were mostly taken over by the crazies.
for occupy: A drum circle changing your government operating procedure of legalized bribery and corruption isn't any crazier than your vote doing it.
For the Koch brothers, they don't care what the crazies do as long as the elect people that will keep their taxes low, which they do, because all people here is "lower taxes" not only lowering the capital gains tax and income tax while keeping social security taxes the same. They don't care if abortions are legal or not, if there's a giant 40 foot high cross stuck onto the capitol building , or public education is using the Flintstones as a reference guide. Their grandkids are in private schools and there's more than enough money to slip down to mexico or more likely, pay a doctor to find a "medical reason" for the procedure. In fact, the only way people will vote for their economic policies is IF they're crazy, so the encourage it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Tea Party first used tea bags as a symbol, until they caught on that being tea baggers was not a good connotation
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it.Rich people using angry rhetoric to stir up support to get people to vote against their own best interests is a tradition as old as america itself.
Yes, but early on there were enough intelligent, coherent, voices that it took a little while for the angry rhetoric to become consistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.
Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...
By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.
I'm not sure where you put the 6 months point. A lot of people may have left, but more kept flooding in for the first few years at least.
As far as I can tell the "Tea Party" name first got broadly applied to the Tax protests in 2009. At that point it was already a weird amalgamation of Rand Paul supporters with those stirred up by Palin. Rand had earlier events linked to the Boston Tea Party, but it didn't really become the name of the movement until 2009, by which point it was already far from the Rand roots. Fox picked it up and Beck started promoting it and we were off to the races.A lot of the early rhetoric was anti-banker and especially anti-bailout. That's really the only similarity to Occupy that I ever saw.
I pulled the 6 month number out of my ass from when I remember my libertarian friends who loved the movement start to flee it. I first heard about it from them, not news, and I wasn't really paying attention to politics at that point, so I can't really say. By the time Palin was involved, they had all already become completely disillusioned with it.
The Tea Party first used tea bags as a symbol, until they caught on that being tea baggers was not a good connotation
Then they co-opted the Gadsden flag, the bastiches. >:(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
lol, that tacky yellow rattlesnake flag?The Tea Party first used tea bags as a symbol, until they caught on that being tea baggers was not a good connotationThen they co-opted the Gadsden flag, the bastiches. >:(
That 'tacky' flag has significant historical significance from the days of the Revolutionary War. It's being co-opted in this fashion is nauseating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.
Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...
By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.
I actually didn't even think that the 2002 Koch group was even related to the 2007-08 Tea Party groups - just that they happened to have the same name. (Not precisely an unique name for an anti-tax/big gov group.) Though they later meshed.
I will say though, while early Tea Party & Occupy Wall Street agreed in being anti-crony capitalism, their proposed solutions were basically the opposite. Tea Party was generally to have less gov, Occupy was to have more gov. (Plus Occupy made a big mess - while one thing I liked about early Tea Party was that they cleaned up their own messes.)
I don't like either of them anymore. Both were mostly taken over by the crazies.
This.
When the Occupy movement was going along, I thought if only the Tea Party hadn't been hijacked, if they had combined forces, you'd have something in the US that no one or nothing could counter.
In a nutshell, the early Tea Party and the Occupy movement wanted the same thing (but had VERY DIFFERENT WAYS of going about it).
Ironically, due to the Tea party's drastic shift to the right by the time Occupy came about, the Tea party was more hypocritical in how they reacted to Occupy and what it was about rather than anything useful...
IMO.
Personally, I was VERY anti-bank and anti-bailout to a degree. I wouldn't want to lose my savings and bank accounts, but at the same time, what went around should go around. I think one of the reasons the pay of jobs haven't equaled out to the inflation is due to things like how we bailed out the banks. If we had a HARD crash, I think balance would eventually have been restored without a bailout, and pricing on homes, houses, and necessities would also have balanced out to where your average person could afford them.
I just recall a few of my libertarian friends hopping on the tea train and draping those flags in their homes. I was like man the republicans got a problem....oh wait Rush, Beck, Palin, and Fox news just signed up so much for that movement. Historical significance or not, the Gadsen flag is fugly.
Yeah, when the crazy right hijacked the Tea Party train, that's about the time I jumped off of it.
I'm actually just a tad bitter about it being hijacked. I seriously think many of the ills was caused by their hijacking the message, and changing the means by which it was proliferated and methods of how one thought it could be accomplished.
I think if the ORIGINAL ideas of the Tea Party had taken effect, we may actually see more equal pay, as well as easier access to necessities for every day US citizens.
The way it was hijacked and what they say today would only make things FAR worse...which is basically a total 180 from what it was originally.
once again, as if it has to be said
IMO.
Historical significance or not, the Gadsden flag is fugly.
That I won't dispute. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That 'tacky' flag has significant historical significance from the days of the Revolutionary War. It's being co-opted in this fashion is nauseating.
It's not like the revolutionary war wasn't fought over some pretty sketchy rationales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not like the revolutionary war wasn't fought over some pretty sketchy rationales.That 'tacky' flag has significant historical significance from the days of the Revolutionary War. It's being co-opted in this fashion is nauseating.
Most revolutions can probably be assigned sketchy rationales.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, when the crazy right hijacked the Tea Party train, that's about the time I jumped off of it.
Again... when was this mythical point in time when the Tea Party wasn't 'hijacked' (i.e. "founded and completely run") by the 'crazy right'?
When Koch set it up in 2002?
When Ron Paul held his (Koch promoted) tea party in December 2007?
When Rick Santelli went on his bigoted Randian rant against mortgage "losers" in February 2009?
When (Koch funded) rallies were held in the weeks after Santelli's remarks?
I can never identify the 'original' / 'grass roots' moment when the Tea Party supposedly had something worthwhile to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power
So you assume that she only has access to that power if she stays with him?
I don't think that's at all true. She's got plenty of power in her own right. She's not being nominated because he's using his power to elevate her to that position.
Perhaps (radical thought) she simply likes the guy and knew all along that philandering was part of the package. You know, made a *choice* about whether or not to stay with him.
It could happen
|
|
I'm willing to grant that some individuals got sucked in with good intentions and then driven out as the crazy became more obvious.
Which had to be by the time of the town halls in the summer of 2009, at the latest.
Oh, sure.
I have no doubt that lots of people believed they were part of a 'grass roots movement' seeking to empower the populace. It's just that... they weren't. The Tea Party was never any such thing.
I'm willing to grant that some individuals got sucked in with good intentions and then driven out as the crazy became more obvious.
Which had to be by the time of the town halls in the summer of 2009, at the latest.Oh, sure.
I have no doubt that lots of people believed they were part of a 'grass roots movement' seeking to empower the populace. It's just that... they weren't. The Tea Party was never any such thing.
Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?