Getting rid of the Tea Party

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

It should be obvious to most people who have been looking at the current political scene that something has done deeply wrong somewhere. I think three different things are responsible for this situation:

1) The two party system which deeply limits the political discourse and ends up cutting up every matter into me vs them even if it's something important such as the economy or the environment

2) Too many private interests. There has been too much meddling by corporations and individuals with a vested interest in some areas. When a side pushes tax cuts for the rich it's pretty obvious they're not doing it out some ideological belief.

3) The Tea Party. A phenomenon that was not truly grassroots which was cynically manipulated by those who believed that it could score an easy increase in polls, only to bounce back and hurt the members of the right when some fanatical members of the far right were ushered into office, the Tea party has left a pretty obvious mark. Too many politicians try to pander to this rabid group and feel they need to go as extreme as possible.

The subject of this thread is to get rid of the third problem. The first one may be concerned with one of the possible solutions and I don't know how to solve the second one. I suppose the only solution for the second problem is to know if you're actually voting for your interests, because I've seen people on welfare, food stamps and working around minimum wage referring to the poor as "lazy moochers". They were unwilling to admit they may be part of the category. (This may the problem with the assumption omnipresent in the U.S that those who are successful are automatically smart while those are not automatically stupid and/or lazy. However, that's a problem for a whole 'nother thread).

I find I would normally go with both sides are at fault in the current scenario, but let's be honest here. How many times have you seen incidents from elected representatives of the democratic party? There are some of course, but even as I'm sure some members of the forum will say politely that the forum is "left-leaning" (or less politely "liberal biased", which I find is a stupid thing to say, not particularly because I find those who keep on saying "liberals, liberals, liberals" like a broken record to be ... well. they're aren't very conductive to discussion), there isn't as many. I'm sure that there has some been some examples of elected representatives saying or behaving in an inappropriate manner in this. It happens often enough that it's no longer an isolated incident.

How many of the far left are in power in comparison to the far right, that's what I'm trying to say. Would Occupy Wall Street count as the far left? Maybe. Do democrats pander to them? Have they been elected into power? No.

Does everyone remember the candidates before Romney? There was Rick Perry, Santorum, Cain and Bachmann all of whom I can say without any political biases were idiots, vicious or both. It's not that hard to see is it? This wasn't the right it was some nut jobs who had little to no grip on science, history and reality. The republican party now has an extreme group of people and those who may be sane are stuck with terrible colleges and what they perceive to be an extreme right electorate base.

I find this to be a bipartisan problem.
So what should be done about this?

I think that the tea party and the extremist elements will dissapear by themselves if Romney loses this election. Hopefully, there would be a general cleaning of the party, some of the leaders would realize that they're not pursuing a good strategy and the next four years after that there could be some work done ( Bipartisan bills could be signed). Anything other than the last few years where the republicans blocked every bill and did anything to hurt the U.S (such as the incident with the debt ceiling) in an effort to make Obama a "one term" president. Or maybe not. This is an optimist viewpoint after all.

Otherwise I suppose that a third party will have to be created.

Either way what could be some good solutions or are there any alternative reasons for the current political landscape?

Frission:
It should be obvious to most people who have been looking at the current political scene that something has done deeply wrong somewhere.

Ok

1) The two party system which deeply limits the political discourse and ends up cutting up every matter into me vs them even if it's something important such as the economy or the environment

OK

2) Too many private interests. There has been too much meddling by corporations and individuals with a vested interest in some areas.

You forgot the government. Allowing the government to manipulate business is just begging for business and government to become one and the same.

When a side pushes tax cuts for the rich it's pretty obvious they're not doing it out some ideological belief.

Why? I would argue that if the government should take money from us for services then it should take as little as possible.

3) Thea Tea Party. A phenomenon that was not truly grassroots

Why, because it is not from YOUR roots?

which was cynically manipulated by those who believed that it could score an easy increase in polls

Which is different from every other party how?

Too many politicians try to pander to this rabid group and feel they need to go as extreme as possible.

Extreme like cut spending and stop borrowing away our future? How radical of them.

How many times have you seen incidents from elected representatives of the democratic party?

Have you been watching the news for the past decade?

How many of the far left are in power in comparison to the far right, that's what I'm trying to say.

The numbers are about the same. It all depends on how you define it which is why such statements are irrelevant.

Does everyone remember the candidates before Romney? There was Rick Perry, Santorum, Cain and Bachmann all of whom I can say without any political biases were idiots, vicious or both.

In your opinion. Perry isn't any one of those things (in my opinion) and I severely dislike the guy (I have several friends who lost land to his little road building project).

The republican party now has an extreme group of people

Which is different from the Democratic Party how?

I think that the tea party and the extremist elements will dissapear by themselves if Romney loses this election.

The lefties said the same thing in the 90s and look how that turned out (and the righties have said the same thing many times as well).

some of the leaders would realize that they're not pursuing a good strategy and the next four years after that there could be some work done ( Bipartisan bills could be signed).

You do realize that it takes two groups (hence the bi) for something to be bipartisan right?

Anything other than the last few years where the republicans blocked every bill and did anything to hurt the U.S (such as the incident with the debt ceiling) in an effort to make Obama a "one term" president.

And the Dems refusing to sign virtually any bill with a GOP header on it was due to what? Rand Paul (a Tea Party member) stated on CNN that he would extend the debt ceiling as high as the Dems wanted IF they would pass a bill in JUST the Senate allowing for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. You get exactly what you want and you give me the chance to get what I want. That sounds like a compromise.

Also, here is something my Republican Congressman supported with the Dems- http://vrc.poe.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6526&catid=104%3Apress-releases&Itemid=144
And
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/atascocita/news/article_a8aab555-4913-500f-b20f-d18961258438.html

Either way what could be some good solutions or are there any alternative reasons for the current political landscape?

The only real solution is to abandon the 2 party system and allow the creation of a large multiparty system.

farson135:

3) Thea Tea Party. A phenomenon that was not truly grassroots

Why, because it is not from YOUR roots?

The Tea Party is bankrolled by the Koch brothers. It is by no means a grassroots movement. They poured millions into getting it started and continue to pour millions into it. In the last decade the Koch brothers have spent an estimated $200 million on their political empire.

One simple question.
If you are against the idea of a 2 party system, why do you want to get rid of the 3rd?
Just because you don't like it? I hate it too, it seems like they are trying to pretty up some really extreme elements in order to make them more acceptable to the masses.
But when you have a pluralistic political system you can't just pick and choose which parties form, you can only choose which of them will represent you by voting.

Verbatim:
One simple question.
If you are against the idea of a 2 party system, why do you want to get rid of the 3rd?
Just because you don't like it? I hate it too, it seems like they are trying to pretty up some really extreme elements in order to make them more acceptable to the masses.
But when you have a pluralistic political system you can't just pick and choose which parties form, you can only choose which of them will represent you by voting.

I'm more against the bad influence the tea party is having on the republican party. Maybe I should have written down : Making the Tea party form their own political party so like this the republican party doesn't pander to them that much.

Frission:

Verbatim:
One simple question.
If you are against the idea of a 2 party system, why do you want to get rid of the 3rd?
Just because you don't like it? I hate it too, it seems like they are trying to pretty up some really extreme elements in order to make them more acceptable to the masses.
But when you have a pluralistic political system you can't just pick and choose which parties form, you can only choose which of them will represent you by voting.

I'm more against the bad influence the tea party is having on the republican party. Maybe I should have written down : Making the Tea party form their own political party so like this the republican party doesn't pander to them that much.

Thats just natural, all political systems end up with a 2 party system, doesn't matter if you have 2 or 40.
In parliamentary democracies which have a proportional representation you usually end up with more parties, but each government eventually has 2 parties.
The Coalition, and the Opposition, both of them have agreements that "force" them to vote together.
The down side of that, is that the coalition agreement is much more costly, since you are basically buying the votes of each coalition partner.
And the down side of this, is if at any given time the price for of a coalition member gets to high and they drop, the entire government might fall and you are forced to go into reelection.

Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

Gergar12:
Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

Frission:

Gergar12:
Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

But you said it was founded on nonsense. How is taxes nonsense. It was founded on lowing the taxes for everyone because the rich tax burdens go to the middle class. I would rather balance the budge than feed a black hole.

Gergar12:

Frission:

Gergar12:
Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

But you said it was founded on nonsense. How is taxes nonsense. It was founded on lowing the taxes for everyone because the rich tax burdens go to the middle class. I would rather balance the budge than feed a black hole.

Are you part of the tea party? We are talking about the same thing here right?

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Can you please explain it to me?

So far I've looked at the tea party's manifesto if it can be called that and they don't have a very good understand of economics. Among other things.

Switch to an alternative vote system while abolishing the electoral college. All votes are counted towards the nationwide total rather than by majority rule in each district and state. This would eliminate the primary cause of number one. Which in turn gives the more sane conservative supporters a chance to edge out problem number three, and also allows voters in general a bit more flexibility to counter problem number two. (although I doubt that one will ever go away entirely)

I love it when problems are stacked up like dominoes with a relatively simple solution available for the nudge. Of course, that also makes it all the more bitter when the simple solution is ignored.

Frission:

Gergar12:

Frission:

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

But you said it was founded on nonsense. How is taxes nonsense. It was founded on lowing the taxes for everyone because the rich tax burdens go to the middle class. I would rather balance the budge than feed a black hole.

Are you part of the tea party? We are talking about the same thing here right?

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Can you please explain it to me?

So far I've looked at the tea party's manifesto if it can be called that and they don't have a very good understand of economics. Among other things.

We are talking about taxes, and the interest on the Debt. The Tea party is for cutting government spending thus cutting taxes. Yes their are companies that donate to the tea party, but can't the same be said about people that are running against the tea party.

Gergar12:

Frission:

Gergar12:

But you said it was founded on nonsense. How is taxes nonsense. It was founded on lowing the taxes for everyone because the rich tax burdens go to the middle class. I would rather balance the budge than feed a black hole.

Are you part of the tea party? We are talking about the same thing here right?

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Can you please explain it to me?

So far I've looked at the tea party's manifesto if it can be called that and they don't have a very good understand of economics. Among other things.

We are talking about taxes, and the interest on the Debt. The Tea party is for cutting government spending thus cutting taxes. Yes their are companies that donate to the tea party, but can't the same be said about people that are running against the tea party.

So what the Tea party advocates is austerity? Tax cuts in which areas?

In my experience the tea party was against all cuts for defense, while being for cutting education, welfare and regulations. Naturally it would be catastrophic. I'm not even going to mention the parts about immigration.

Though the movement claims to have no defined leadership, there are public figures and entities who nevertheless carry that mantle.

When the movement was christened for a large tax day protest, it was derived wholesale from the efforts of a registered corporate lobbyist and a right-leaning cable news network, whose president recently pointed out that it's all about ratings. You can see for example the contrast between occupy wall street and the tea party. Notice the media attention deliberately engineered.

The deficit, defined as the yearly addition to the accumulated national debt, doesn't outweigh all other issues. The national debt is simply a loan by the government, just as when a person takes out a home mortgage. As with the mortgage, a key issue is whether you can make the payments. The U.S. can make the payments. Its debt in comparison to the size of the economy is well below that ratio for France, Germany or Japan.

The other key issue regarding the national debt is whether government borrowing is justified. And that depends on what it's for. Deficit spending to create jobs should be a top priority in an economy that suffers a high rate of unemployment and underemployment. However, borrowing money and going into debt to fund tax cuts for the rich and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are not justified, economically or morally.

A little known fact about modern capitalism is that it requires ever more debt to prop up profits. And government debt is key. When governments sell bonds to raise money, they are borrowing from bond-buyers who can still use them as though they were cash. The same borrowed amount the government spends is still being traded by the bondholder! Marx explained that it was the national debt that created "stock exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy."

The only way to get rid of the national debt is to get rid of capitalism.

Frission:

In my experience the tea party was against all cuts for defense, while being for cutting education, welfare and regulations. Naturally it would be catastrophic.

In short, they're for the same sorta shit that tanked our economy in the first place.

Far-right and far-left political movements usually run out of steam on their own. I doubt the Tea Party will last much longer, especially if Romney wins (they won't have anything left to fight for).

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, but the Republican party is in its last years, Romney win or not. One more major loss, and they're finished.

You cannot just simply get rid of a group of like minded political groups that have formed a photo-party just to help proclaim their political beliefs since they feel the people that are in Congress do not represent their view points. The constitution protects the right to peaceably assemble or the freedom to express yourselves. Doesn't matter what the group is or what ever the speech is (see Westboro Baptist Church), as long as your not hurting anyone, it is ok. There are many such organizations on both sides of the political spectrum, liked Occupy.

Even if you did, the Tea Party would only get stronger, because the government would be stripping them of there constitutional rights of the first amendment. They would become an underground oppressed group. More people would believe their cries that the government is big, evil, and oppressive when the government acts oppressive.

Frission:

Gergar12:
Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

We are not to determine what another person feels like to much taxes. That is for themselves to decide.

The two party system is the result of voting system, nothing else.

Have you seen this video before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=1&feature=plcp

Not G. Ivingname:
You cannot just simply get rid of a group of like minded political groups that have formed a photo-party just to help proclaim their political beliefs since they feel the people that are in Congress do not represent their view points. The constitution protects the right to peaceably assemble or the freedom to express yourselves. Doesn't matter what the group is or what ever the speech is (see Westboro Baptist Church), as long as your not hurting anyone, it is ok. There are many such organizations on both sides of the political spectrum, liked Occupy.

Even if you did, the Tea Party would only get stronger, because the government would be stripping them of there constitutional rights of the first amendment. They would become an underground oppressed group. More people would believe their cries that the government is big, evil, and oppressive when the government acts oppressive.

Frission:

Gergar12:
Tea Party-taxed enough already. Yes people America is a country founded on having representation on taxes need I remind you. Yes a two partly system is bad, but Thomas Jefferson had no choice because it was either that or we would go off being a imperial empire, and fighting every war in Europe because the countries told us to.

The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

I don't know about the last bit. Other developed countries have more than a two party system, but I digress.

We are not to determine what another person feels like to much taxes. That is for themselves to decide.

The two party system is the result of voting system, nothing else.

Have you seen this video before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D&index=1&feature=plcp

Read the OP. I'm not suddenly talking about making them go underground because we're making them a hunted group. A great problem is all this hyperbole. If you feel that it's better to leave them alone then it's your right to say so. I find their effects disturbing, because they're a vocal minority which is poisoning political discourse.

Take for example the Golden Dawn. I find their rise to power discouraging, but I know very well I can't stop them since it is the will of the majority. The tea party however does not have that majority in the country and the right. Yet, politicians feel the need to pander to them.

Heronblade:
Switch to an alternative vote system while abolishing the electoral college. All votes are counted towards the nationwide total rather than by majority rule in each district and state. This would eliminate the primary cause of number one. Which in turn gives the more sane conservative supporters a chance to edge out problem number three, and also allows voters in general a bit more flexibility to counter problem number two. (although I doubt that one will ever go away entirely)

I love it when problems are stacked up like dominoes with a relatively simple solution available for the nudge. Of course, that also makes it all the more bitter when the simple solution is ignored.

Alternative vote is a whole lot of effort for a little bit of gain. I prefer approval. Far simpler. Far better. Also it would solve problem three the easiest, as approval voting rewards moderates.

renegade7:
Far-right and far-left political movements usually run out of steam on their own. I doubt the Tea Party will last much longer, especially if Romney wins (they won't have anything left to fight for).

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, but the Republican party is in its last years, Romney win or not. One more major loss, and they're finished.

And they're finished? What do you think will happen to the Republican party if it loses this election? All of the Republicans move to another country and another party steps in to fill the hole or something?

The status quo rarely changes.

The Tea Party is about Social Conservatism. Maybe it started out being about taxes and corporate interests, but those days are long gone. Must suck to be a member of the original founding idea, though. You can thank Palin and all those theocrats infesting it. Not that I'm convinced the Tea Party was sensible to begin with, but the current state is certainly awful.

renegade7:
Far-right and far-left political movements usually run out of steam on their own. I doubt the Tea Party will last much longer, especially if Romney wins (they won't have anything left to fight for).

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, but the Republican party is in its last years, Romney win or not. One more major loss, and they're finished.

Do you mean one major loss like two years ago. Do you realize there are more Republicans in the House now than there has been in 80 years? And the only thing stopping a similar massacre in the Senate is that only a third of them were up for reelection.

An incumbent President always has an advantage. The fact that the election is this close and that Obama could lose doesn't help argument that the Republican Party is going away.

Seems to me you are confusing wishful thinking with reality.

Charles_Martel:

renegade7:
Far-right and far-left political movements usually run out of steam on their own. I doubt the Tea Party will last much longer, especially if Romney wins (they won't have anything left to fight for).

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, but the Republican party is in its last years, Romney win or not. One more major loss, and they're finished.

Do you mean one major loss like two years ago. Do you realize there are more Republicans in the House now than there has been in 80 years? And the only thing stopping a similar massacre in the Senate is that only a third of them were up for reelection.

An incumbent President always has an advantage. The fact that the election is this close and that Obama could lose doesn't help argument that the Republican Party is going away.

Seems to me you are confusing wishful thinking with reality.

If a far-right movement like the Tea Party continues to gain ground in the Republican Party, then moderate Republicans will begin to lose interest in the party and possibly vote Democrat or ideally move to a third party.

You know, there's only one proper, legitimate way to get rid of any party without infringing of their rights.

That way includes people realizing said party is full of shit and moving on to support something else.

Some countries are just unfortunate enough that they are populated by people who can't or won't do so.

renegade7:

Charles_Martel:

renegade7:
Far-right and far-left political movements usually run out of steam on their own. I doubt the Tea Party will last much longer, especially if Romney wins (they won't have anything left to fight for).

It really doesn't matter how you look at it, but the Republican party is in its last years, Romney win or not. One more major loss, and they're finished.

Do you mean one major loss like two years ago. Do you realize there are more Republicans in the House now than there has been in 80 years? And the only thing stopping a similar massacre in the Senate is that only a third of them were up for reelection.

An incumbent President always has an advantage. The fact that the election is this close and that Obama could lose doesn't help argument that the Republican Party is going away.

Seems to me you are confusing wishful thinking with reality.

If a far-right movement like the Tea Party continues to gain ground in the Republican Party, then moderate Republicans will begin to lose interest in the party and possibly vote Democrat or ideally move to a third party.

Wanting smaller government is a far-right movement?

How many moderate Democrats have been forced out or left the party in recent years. Blue Dog Democrats are a dying breed.
People leave and join political parties all the time. The big two do to the nature of the system aren't going away anytime soon.

Vegosiux:
You know, there's only one proper, legitimate way to get rid of any party without infringing of their rights.

That way includes people realizing said party is full of shit and moving on to support something else.

Some countries are just unfortunate enough that they are populated by people who can't or won't do so.

More or less yeah (well, excepting if your voting laws change and it shakes up the political landscape).

Skeleon:
The Tea Party is about Social Conservatism. Maybe it started out being about taxes and corporate interests, but those days are long gone. Must suck to be a member of the original founding idea, though. You can thank Palin and all those theocrats infesting it. Not that I'm convinced the Tea Party was sensible to begin with, but the current state is certainly awful.

I think the even more ironic twist is that the changes you mention were instigated by the same mechanics that helped the movement to break out into the general public conciousness in the first place. Regardless of the earlier underpinning sentiments that started the movement, it would be no more powerful or prevalent today than the environmental movement, were it not for the media springboard that Fox News provided. The regional rallies and meetings would have remained local phenomena. Perhaps over time, they would have come together and established a national committe or organization and maybe persisted on the level of the Green Party or perhaps a bit more, but to be sure, they would not have swept the congressional primaries they way they did in 2010.

The self-reinforcing interaction between the Tea Party and Fox News benefitted Fox because it reinforced their longstanding narrative about conservativism in America. For the Tea party, which had been a small time fringe movement since the 1990s, the national media attention caused their numbers to multiply so dramatically that they went from letter writing campaigns to putting forward candidates for national office in less than 12 months.

The Tea Party Movement had defined itself by a rejection of authority, mostly the government's, but it seemed to be reflected internally as well. Instead of organizing behind any sort of central governing council or national chairperson like most modeny political parties, it was drawn in by big charasmatic personalities (like Sarah Palin) who positioned themselves as mouthpieces of the party and were accepted in the role due to their eloquency, their unwavering commitment to the principles of the party, or sometimes... their love of moose hunting.

Let's take a few steps back and realize that the traditional republican establishment was kindof freaking out as the movement grew, even more so when they began deposing incumbent republicans in congressional primaries. The Old Guard of the republican party had difficulty coming to grips with how far to the fiscal right the movement had headed. The GOP of Regan and Goldwater was conservative to be sure, but they understood that successful politics required a certain give and take:
1. A happy electorate requires a content middle class, which in turn requires certain government expenditures, even if they don't always jive with the strict conservative line.
2. A strong national defense needs substantial government revenue to support, thus a need for a relatively balanced tax code (not to mention a fairly strong central government).
3. Governments as entities are unique in their ability to engage in deficit spending which at times is necessary to offset naturally occuring ups-and-downs of capitalism, with the understanding that most debts can be recovered in times of economic growth.

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. These are for the most part accepted truths amongst really experieced government observers and politicians. The differences in mainsteam of ideology float around and in between these big tentpoles (federal vs. state power, intricacies of tax policy, etc. etc.). Ideologies that exist outside these wide moderate ideas can get fringe and extremist quite quickly. The Tea Party planted their conservative flag just outside the borders of centrist policial discourse and the GOP that had operated quarely within the political mainstream didn't immediately know how to deal with this departure. The Tea Party narrative was aggressively libritarian, to the point of dismantling the very government of which the GOP had a very active political and monetary investment. The fundamentalist "Small Government" line gets problematic when there are some expenditures that you are quite fond of, in Republican's case, defense, among other things.

So how did this all play out? The GOP integrated much of the Tea Party ideology into their platform while dropping some aspects, but in general the small government mantra was left largely intact, which has since caused problems for bipartisan political discourse writ large. Ryan Lizza coined the term 'asymmetric polarization' wherein the political center has not really moved, but the mainstream right has moved to a dramatically more extreme position that incorporates the idea that government itself is a problem to be fixed. This stance generates confrontation rather than compromise and belligerence instead of reasoned discourse because the ideology of the far right now states that merely participating in a government that incorporates any liberal views is unprincipled. The resulting political gridlock only reinforces their narrative that governmnet is fundamentally broken.

So there you have it. The Tea Party took off thanks to Fox News and drew the mainstream political right so far to the extreme that it now rejects honest attempts at particiption and cooperation with those of of a different ideology. How do we fix it? It's probably not going to get better overnight, but I think we got a taste of what a rebalancing might look like in Wisconson. We may see some turnarounds on the state level when Tea Party republicans sweep state legislatures and have no one to blame when the general public realizes that their policies are a bit too extreme, and then flush out the partisans via recall or in following elections.

I'd be in support of the idea to force the tea party party if they want to try to say they are unique.

As it is, it is just a corporate funded attempt to get more people to vote extreme republican. I'd be all cool if they went and formed their own party, but they try to say they aren't republicans while putting up republican candidates and campaigning for republicans.

Tea party needs to be exposed for what they are. A republican hype machine. They aren't seperate from the republican party, they are the exact same thing.

Charles_Martel:
Wanting smaller government is a far-right movement?

When it's as extreme as the tea party wants, then yes. They're so extreme that the regular right wing is about as far alienated from them as any other opposing political view.

I mean, regular right wing, then you're talking about the most moderate and left-wing Democrats you can probably find in the US. It's not hard to see that they have so little in common with the extremist Tea Party that you simply can't compare their ideologies.

Kind of like national-socialism has left wing social policies, but tossing nazis and social-democrats into one 'left wing' category would be completely wrong.

Verbatim:

Frission:

Verbatim:
One simple question.
If you are against the idea of a 2 party system, why do you want to get rid of the 3rd?
Just because you don't like it? I hate it too, it seems like they are trying to pretty up some really extreme elements in order to make them more acceptable to the masses.
But when you have a pluralistic political system you can't just pick and choose which parties form, you can only choose which of them will represent you by voting.

I'm more against the bad influence the tea party is having on the republican party. Maybe I should have written down : Making the Tea party form their own political party so like this the republican party doesn't pander to them that much.

Thats just natural, all political systems end up with a 2 party system, doesn't matter if you have 2 or 40.
In parliamentary democracies which have a proportional representation you usually end up with more parties, but each government eventually has 2 parties.
The Coalition, and the Opposition, both of them have agreements that "force" them to vote together.
The down side of that, is that the coalition agreement is much more costly, since you are basically buying the votes of each coalition partner.
And the down side of this, is if at any given time the price for of a coalition member gets to high and they drop, the entire government might fall and you are forced to go into reelection.

Yes, and no.
There will always be two sides, but in a parliamentary system, a LOT of more concessions have to be given to several smaller parties. This means that in essence, one party that only gets five % of the votes can push some rather big issues, and get away with it, simply because whoever caters them the most gets their votes.
And no, I don't know where you live, but it's not going to become a re-election every time a smaller coalition member throws a tantrum. They chose their sides, and then they are stuck until next election.

pyrate:
The Tea Party is bankrolled by the Koch brothers.

Some groups are supported by the Koch Brothers. Can you prove that the entirety of the Tea Party Movement was started by them?

It is by no means a grassroots movement.

In your opinion.

Frission:
The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

In your opinion. Also, who the hell is not averse to being taxed?

Frission:
So what the Tea party advocates is austerity? Tax cuts in which areas?

In my experience the tea party was against all cuts for defense, while being for cutting education, welfare and regulations.

You are working under the very shaky assumption that all Tea Party groups are advocating the same thing.

Naturally it would be catastrophic.

In your opinion.

I'm not even going to mention the parts about immigration.

Because you do not know anything about the Tea Party's immigration platform (mostly because there generally isn't one)

Though the movement claims to have no defined leadership, there are public figures and entities who nevertheless carry that mantle.

In your opinion.

When the movement was christened for a large tax day protest, it was derived wholesale from the efforts of a registered corporate lobbyist and a right-leaning cable news network, whose president recently pointed out that it's all about ratings.

In your opinion.

You can see for example the contrast between occupy wall street and the tea party. Notice the media attention deliberately engineered.

Yeah, the lefties vilify the Tea Party and support the OWS guys while it is the opposite for the righties. So why aren't you speaking against OWS?

The deficit, defined as the yearly addition to the accumulated national debt, doesn't outweigh all other issues. The national debt is simply a loan by the government, just as when a person takes out a home mortgage. As with the mortgage, a key issue is whether you can make the payments. The U.S. can make the payments. Its debt in comparison to the size of the economy is well below that ratio for France, Germany or Japan.

So, because the situation is not catastrophic yet we should just leave it alone? It is a problem, how about we deal with it before it destroys us?

A little known fact about modern capitalism is that it requires ever more debt to prop up profits.

No it doesn't. That is one method that people have used to make money but that is not necessary (in fact it is in many ways contrary to pure capitalism).

The only way to get rid of the national debt is to get rid of capitalism.

No, the only way to get rid of the national debt is to stop spending so much goddamn money.

farson135:

pyrate:
The Tea Party is bankrolled by the Koch brothers.

Some groups are supported by the Koch Brothers. Can you prove that the entirety of the Tea Party Movement was started by them?

It is by no means a grassroots movement.

In your opinion.

Frission:
The tea party was founded on nonsense. It's become less being taxes with representation and more an aversion on taxes period.

In your opinion. Also, who the hell is not averse to being taxed?

Frission:
So what the Tea party advocates is austerity? Tax cuts in which areas?

In my experience the tea party was against all cuts for defense, while being for cutting education, welfare and regulations.

You are working under the very shaky assumption that all Tea Party groups are advocating the same thing.

Naturally it would be catastrophic.

In your opinion.

I'm not even going to mention the parts about immigration.

Because you do not know anything about the Tea Party's immigration platform (mostly because there generally isn't one)

Though the movement claims to have no defined leadership, there are public figures and entities who nevertheless carry that mantle.

In your opinion.

When the movement was christened for a large tax day protest, it was derived wholesale from the efforts of a registered corporate lobbyist and a right-leaning cable news network, whose president recently pointed out that it's all about ratings.

In your opinion.

You can see for example the contrast between occupy wall street and the tea party. Notice the media attention deliberately engineered.

Yeah, the lefties vilify the Tea Party and support the OWS guys while it is the opposite for the righties. So why aren't you speaking against OWS?

The deficit, defined as the yearly addition to the accumulated national debt, doesn't outweigh all other issues. The national debt is simply a loan by the government, just as when a person takes out a home mortgage. As with the mortgage, a key issue is whether you can make the payments. The U.S. can make the payments. Its debt in comparison to the size of the economy is well below that ratio for France, Germany or Japan.

So, because the situation is not catastrophic yet we should just leave it alone? It is a problem, how about we deal with it before it destroys us?

A little known fact about modern capitalism is that it requires ever more debt to prop up profits.

No it doesn't. That is one method that people have used to make money but that is not necessary (in fact it is in many ways contrary to pure capitalism).

The only way to get rid of the national debt is to get rid of capitalism.

No, the only way to get rid of the national debt is to stop spending so much goddamn money.

In your opinion.

(See how tiresome such a claim is?)

Verbatim:
One simple question.
If you are against the idea of a 2 party system, why do you want to get rid of the 3rd?
Just because you don't like it? I hate it too, it seems like they are trying to pretty up some really extreme elements in order to make them more acceptable to the masses.
But when you have a pluralistic political system you can't just pick and choose which parties form, you can only choose which of them will represent you by voting.

The Tea Party is just on e of the appendages of the Republican party much like The Heritage Foundation or The Goldwater Institute.

Realitycrash:
In your opinion.

(See how tiresome such a claim is?)

You do realize that that statement only works when you are addressing something. Saying, "the tea party was founded on nonsense", is an opinion. He provided no facts to give his opinion credence and instead only stated it as fact.

farson135:

Realitycrash:
In your opinion.

(See how tiresome such a claim is?)

You do realize that that statement only works when you are addressing something.

In your opinion.

Saying, "the tea party was founded on nonsense", is an opinion. He provided no facts to give his opinion credence and instead only stated it as fact.

And you provided no counter-claims concerning facts, or showed him wrong by sourcing anything. You just said "In your opinion", over and over again, which is the same as saying "No, I'm right, you're wrong".

It really bugs me, that's all (actually, what really bugs me is the need for some people to use "point by point rebuttal". Only makes things messy to read and respond to).

Realitycrash:
And you provided no counter-claims concerning facts, or showed him wrong by sourcing anything. You just said "In your opinion", over and over again, which is the same as saying "No, I'm right, you're wrong".

Actually, the point was that he thinks it is that way but that does not necessarily make it true. Frankly, I am tired of talking about the Tea Party. A bunch of people keep attacking them for no good reason and I am sick of telling people off for it. I am also sick of addressing people ridiculous claims when their claims are only based on their opinion.

Tell me, can one single thing I called an opinion be proven correct with actual facts? For example, can you prove that there are overall leaders of the Tea Party? Of course not, there are so many autonomous groups that it is impossible to say that anyone is a leader for the whole movement. His opinion is based upon people who are public supporters of the Tea Party but it is not based upon the facts of the case. There is my explanation. It is a cut down version of the same thing I have posted about 20 times on this forum alone. Do you think that he is going to be more convinced of the facts after the paragraph I just typed than with the post I made before? Probably not. If he can be convinced then telling him, "what you said is just an opinion until you can prove it" should force him to examine why he thinks what he thinks and if there are no facts then he should reexamine his opinion.

The Tea Party is regularly attacked by people who hold an opinion about it. Unfortunately, the opinion many people have about the movement is not based on facts. I do not particularly care for groups of the Tea Party because they kicked members of my party (the Libertarian Party) out. In other words I dislike some of the groups because of how they treated my party. I also dislike some groups because of their leaders, or their mission statements, ect. In other words, I go out of my way to inform myself about something before I attack it. This is one of the best defenses of the Tea Party I have seen and it is attacking a common stereotype-

(actually, what really bugs me is the need for some people to use "point by point rebuttal". Only makes things messy to read and respond to).

Actually it makes it easier to respond to. That way I know what the fuck you are talking about. A little while ago someone responded to me by quoting my entire post and part of their response included a bunch of sources and I do not know what the sources were addressing (even after reading them they do not seem to be addressing a specific part of my post).

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked