the tea party: libertarian my ass

2»

Comments

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Cosmo wrote:
    Getting rid of the party system is never going to happen... however, the rise of a third (and possibly fourth) party is completely possible. The trick is that the third party will typically siphon off voters from one party or the other. Look at the recent elections where a third party was a factor... 1992 and 2000. Ross Perot siphoned off voters who were more likely to vote for Bush(41) than Clinton, Nader voters were more likely to vote Gore ahan Bush(43).
    The Tea Party would have been better served by collaborating with the Libertarian Party and could possibly field a candidate such as Paul, who might defect from the deeply dysfunctional Republican party.
    Instead, they chose the rhetoric of the Karl Rove Republican party and are now part of that party... whether they want to believe it or not.
    If the Tea Party wants to stop being a joke... they NEED to dump the Republicans... dump FOX News... dump Sarah Palin and get back to their origins, replacing Republicans and Democrats with Independents that hold no alligence to the Two Party system.

    never gonna happen is different than should happen ...

    i think with the electoral colleges and the way the voting happens ... third partys have very little influence ... people keep saying nader prevented gore from winning but the reality is that fraud prevented gore from winning ...

    as for the tea party ... they've stopped becoming a joke a long time ago ... they are similar to our reform party of yesteryear here in canada ... they couldn't win significant seats because they constantly said stupid things ... all the tea party needs is an articulate manipulator (much like stephen harper is up here) and they are golden ... put a media ban on comments and micromanage the candidates ... focus on a message of freedom, less taxes and they will generate the necessary votes ...

    in the end - they can hold considerable power ...
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    polaris_x wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    Getting rid of the party system is never going to happen... however, the rise of a third (and possibly fourth) party is completely possible. The trick is that the third party will typically siphon off voters from one party or the other. Look at the recent elections where a third party was a factor... 1992 and 2000. Ross Perot siphoned off voters who were more likely to vote for Bush(41) than Clinton, Nader voters were more likely to vote Gore ahan Bush(43).
    The Tea Party would have been better served by collaborating with the Libertarian Party and could possibly field a candidate such as Paul, who might defect from the deeply dysfunctional Republican party.
    Instead, they chose the rhetoric of the Karl Rove Republican party and are now part of that party... whether they want to believe it or not.
    If the Tea Party wants to stop being a joke... they NEED to dump the Republicans... dump FOX News... dump Sarah Palin and get back to their origins, replacing Republicans and Democrats with Independents that hold no alligence to the Two Party system.

    never gonna happen is different than should happen ...

    i think with the electoral colleges and the way the voting happens ... third partys have very little influence ... people keep saying nader prevented gore from winning but the reality is that fraud prevented gore from winning ...

    as for the tea party ... they've stopped becoming a joke a long time ago ... they are similar to our reform party of yesteryear here in canada ... they couldn't win significant seats because they constantly said stupid things ... all the tea party needs is an articulate manipulator (much like stephen harper is up here) and they are golden ... put a media ban on comments and micromanage the candidates ... focus on a message of freedom, less taxes and they will generate the necessary votes ...

    in the end - they can hold considerable power ...
    ...
    I think they can... if they are strong enough to break from the Republican Party. Right now... the Tea Party is the Republican Party and vice versa.
    ...
    P.S. I cannot picture anyone who voted for Nader in 2000 ever even considering voting for George W. Bush/Christian Coalition. If you can, great. But most people I know would rather lose a thumb by rusty bolt cutter, than vote for Bush.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    polaris_x wrote:
    how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

    An ideal concept, but it contains common sense so they won't do it.
  • unsung
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Cosmo wrote:
    If the Tea Party wants to stop being a joke... they NEED to dump the Republicans... dump FOX News... dump Sarah Palin and get back to their origins, replacing Republicans and Democrats with Independents that hold no alligence to the Two Party system.

    They need to support 3rd party candidates that ARE for those things you mentioned.

    I knew they were hijacked when Sarah Palin came on board. That was the end. However they still have use by having candidates eliminate long-term entrenched politicians from both major parties. Castle...gone, Specter...gone. That is a good thing.
  • bgivens33
    bgivens33 Posts: 290
    Cosmo wrote:
    Getting rid of the party system is never going to happen... however, the rise of a third (and possibly fourth) party is completely possible. The trick is that the third party will typically siphon off voters from one party or the other. Look at the recent elections where a third party was a factor... 1992 and 2000. Ross Perot siphoned off voters who were more likely to vote for Bush(41) than Clinton, Nader voters were more likely to vote Gore ahan Bush(43).
    The Tea Party would have been better served by collaborating with the Libertarian Party and could possibly field a candidate such as Paul, who might defect from the deeply dysfunctional Republican party.
    Instead, they chose the rhetoric of the Karl Rove Republican party and are now part of that party... whether they want to believe it or not.
    If the Tea Party wants to stop being a joke... they NEED to dump the Republicans... dump FOX News... dump Sarah Palin and get back to their origins, replacing Republicans and Democrats with Independents that hold no alligence to the Two Party system.


    You understand that if a 3rd or 4th party actually became significant, the president would be decided by the house of representatives?
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    bgivens33 wrote:
    You understand that if a 3rd or 4th party actually became significant, the president would be decided by the house of representatives?
    ...
    Not if a candidate garners the mandatory Electoral votes. Win a state by popular vote and you pick up that state's Electoral votes, right?
    In that case, it does not go to a tie breaker in the House, correct?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • satansbed
    satansbed Posts: 2,139
    unsung wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    how about the abolishment of political parties? ... no more republicans or democrats ... you are identified in your candidacy by your name and your idealogy ...

    An ideal concept, but it contains common sense so they won't do it.

    no it doesn't cause party's will start again because its the most efficient way to vote, why do you think every government in the world has a party system, its the most effective
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Well one of the first things to get rid of is the electoral college. There is NO NEED for it anymore.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Pepe Silvia
    Pepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    yeah, you'd think they'd be pretty big supporters of things like freedom of speech and yet we know how they will react when they disagree with you

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsrD9NxR ... r_embedded
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • bgivens33
    bgivens33 Posts: 290
    Cosmo wrote:
    bgivens33 wrote:
    You understand that if a 3rd or 4th party actually became significant, the president would be decided by the house of representatives?
    ...
    Not if a candidate garners the mandatory Electoral votes. Win a state by popular vote and you pick up that state's Electoral votes, right?
    In that case, it does not go to a tie breaker in the House, correct?

    Right. But the idea is a candidate would have to win the majority of votes. If there are 3-4 significant candidates, it would become extremely difficult to get the 270 votes needed.

Categories