[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:28, topic:550207”]
Taking over 14% of GDP doesn’t qualify as ‘Hard Left’? Regulating the types of light bulbs that can, or cannot be sold doesn’t qualify as ‘Hard Left’? Bypassing the legislative branch and classifying carbon dioxide (which comes out of both of our mouths) as a toxic gas isn’t ‘Hard Left’?
What the hell else would need to happen to clear your particular bar?
Had a rabid skunk wander in, once, and everybody split. Finished their beers first, though.
Quoth Clothahump:
If that were true, then they’d like the guy who’s lowering their taxes.
Leaving aside the question of whether they’re powerful or grassroots, I’m not sure I’d even call the Tea Party a “movement”. They’re a catch-all of folks who are Mad as Hell and Aren’t Going to Take it Any More, but they can’t agree on why they’re mad, or what they’re not going to take any more, or what they need to do to make things better.
What percentage of GDP did the recent Republican-dominated governments take?
They didn’t take it, they just spent it! Whole different thing.
He’s not as cool as this guy.
Again, they have the same voting power as you do and they are more likely to vote. Calling them racists, etc, will only ensure they won’t vote with you. Yes, some are never going to, but some will if given the right incentives.
Many of them ARE motivated by racism. Not all of them, mind you, but a good percentage. (Check out “Free Republic” sometime. It’s not overt, but you’ll read comments like “getto trash”, “Mammy and Pappy”, etc)
Garbage. They’re right wing bigots who hate having a black man in the White house, and are perfectly happy with the government taxing other people to give them money. They aren’t poor oppressed victims; they are bigots, parasites and thugs.
How about actually cracking down on the misbehavior of the wealthy and corporations, and raising taxes on them? That’s what a moderate left winger would do, much less a “hard left” person. How about actually punishing some of the people responsible for our economic mess? How about pushing for universal health care, like most people wanted? How about supporting same sex marriage? How about not grovelling before the Republicans at every opportunity? Obama isn’t even a moderate left winger or he’d have done all of those things, or at least tried.
For that matter, how about going after Bush and friends? Obama (surprise surprise) made it clear right off that Bush and his fellow monsters were going to be allowed to get away with everything they did; no investigation, much less any punishment. That’s not exactly “hard left”. Most of the leftwingers I know consider him barely better than Bush, at best.
Garbage. They’ll never be anything but my enemy. They’ll never in their lives try to do anything but destroy everything I consider good and exploit or tyrannize everything within their grasp. Trying to treat lunatics and scum as reasonable people is a major part of what has made the Democrats so ineffective. They need to realize that the Right is primary composed of enemies; not rivals, and certainly not any kind of “Loyal Opposition”. The Right has no loyalty to or concern for the country in general; only themselves.
Meh. So 30% of the repubs split off and became tea partiers. Added together, the total number of repubs and tea partiers is still too small to affect any elections of consequence that aren’t primaries. Imho, they are going to affect a lot of elections where dems had no chance of winning in the first place and will probably have their own candidates someday. With any luck, people will start to realize that being crazy is not going to make many friends except with other crazy people, and this will signal the end of the republican party.
I theorized this back in 2002 or so: why not eliminate the republican party and split the dems into liberal and conservative? It’s obvious today’s republicans are more or less insane. At least democratic conservatives aren’t radicals.
I’m trying to see the difference between you and what you say they are, but really can’t. Again, they have the same right to vote as you do and are more likely to do so. Are you suggesting to remove their right to vote?
I think their most basic need is a white president. What would be a way of addressing that need that wouldn’t be abhorrent and go against the Constitution?
Standard right wing tactic; anytime someone calls the right wing lunatics what they are, you hear cries of “you’re just as bad as they are!” Without any evidence of that of course.
Where in the world did you get that?
There is a suspicion amongst Americans against government suggesting it can’t do anything positive. Even democrat leaning people feel that way.
Which is both nonsense, and hypocritical coming from people dependent on Medicare and Social Security like so many of the teabaggers. “Get your government hands off my Medicare”, remember? These people are incoherent.
Well, no. I tend towards being a Contrarian. You start calling me names and I’m likely to take the opposite side just because. Whereas if you engage me honestly then I’ll make an attempt to see your side of things and work towards a collaboration or compromise. You automatically draw a line that people find hard to cross.
What? Asking a question of what you intend to do with a group of people who you classify as ‘enemies’?
I wouldn’t let my ‘enemies’ vote. Enemies are those you kill before they kill you. Or are they not actually ‘enemies’, but just people you disagree with, and heaven forbid, disagree with you?
Not when doing so is impractical, and not when they haven’t yet gone violent themselves. I fail to see how trying to kill them would accomplish anything. There’s plenty of ways someone can be your enemy without using violence. An enemy is someone devoted to doing you or your friends or your interests harm; whether the method they are using is violent only colors how you respond.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
I think you’re just being pissy because Huckabee didn’t even get the nomination.
The big issue for me is again, how did they create such an effective movement that they could engage in so many primaries from the right? I don’t remember the religious right ever having that kind of power (maybe they did in the 80s and I just don’t know it)
In senate races in Kentucky, California, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Connecticut & Utah so far (and probably other states) the Tea Party has managed to put up a candidate who pushed out the more moderate candidate who was supported by the establishment GOP.
It may happen in Arizona too, and probably a bunch of other states. But of the 37 senate elections in 2010, the tea party will likely manage to engage in effective primaries from the right in at least 10 of them.
So my question is, how did they do it? How did they create such a powerful movement to engage in effective primaries in such a short period of time?
Primaries are one of the few forms of pressure and influence that politicians actually fear. And the Tea Party seems to be expert at it, and they seem to have sprung out of nowhere with their ability to do it.
I don’t know if labor unions, the religious right or liberals have ever had the kind of influence in primaries that the tea party does.
If you think about the math, it’s not that big a deal.
repub Candidate A is the mainstream candidate and would get 2/3 of the repub vote normally. His repub opponent, Candidate B, would get 1/3 normally. If the tea baggers are 1/3 or even 1/5, they would shift the victory to Candidate B.
You can have very large discrepancies between candidates where subtracting from the leader and adding that to the 2nd place candidate would make them switch places.
Example: In the primaries, 80 out of 100 vote for Candidate A. Candidate B gets 20 out of 100. If 31 of the voters change from Candidate A to Candidate B, Candidate B will win 51 to 49. Therefore, a very small number of radicals (here, 31% of the total) caused a major shift at the polls.
Imagine if the numbers were even closer. At a 60-40 lead, only 11% would need to shift. At 55-45, only 6% would affect the outcome.
However, the real test will be the general elections. If the tea bagger candidates can overcome the sane repubs AND the dem candidate, I would say they have some marginal power. Within a party, however, the effect of a small number of people is very large. There are, as hard is it may seem to believe, anywhere from 10-20% of the repubs that do not vote for their party candidate and will vote with the dems.