You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 10:33:56 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.  (Read 1318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« on: February 17, 2010, 10:15:21 PM »
Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? If the so-called Tea Party Patriots (and I resent their hijackery of Boston's brilliant Revolutionary PR, I really do) are looking to pick up the (supposedly) all-powerful independent vote with more of the ultra-conservative bullshit we see from the Republican party, they really are doing it wrong.

I'm not sure I have much of a political point, here, so maybe this thread belongs in Bad and Ugly. They're all crazy. I'm tired of lesser of two evils. I would like a third option, please. A real one.

I would like a third-party option that really does believe in lesser government, not lesser government except for where it covers my uterus and Neil Patrick Harris' right to marry. These are not government issues. I would like a third-party option that is interested in what its voters have to say, not the wackos that run the lobbyist groups. I would like a third-party option that caters to the goddamn voters, for once.

*hisses and spits at the Dems and the GOP and the Libertarians and the Tea Party and everyone else stinking up Washington D.C. right now*

Offline Jude

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2010, 10:28:41 PM »
Many of the principles you're saying aren't government issues are issues voters care about though.  A sizable portion of the country wants stricter abortion laws and same sex marriage banned; the majority certainly isn't in favor of either being completely legalized (or remaining that way).  So I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk the parties not catering to the voters; they are, I would say that's the problem.

Offline Mnemaxa

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2010, 10:34:25 PM »
Third party is pretty much a joke.  They can't get money from the major lobbyists; they would have to be totally self supporting.  The parties in power would hamstring them in the major bills department by voting against them in all cases. 

The government's open party system is a joke, nothing more.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2010, 10:42:45 PM »
No, they're not catering to voters. They're trying to score brownie points. There is a difference, and the tactic is incredibly divisive.

Health care is the here-and-now, and that's fine. Jobs are a big issue, and I know that many of my own acquaintances care more about whether they have a job than whether two people they hardly know can get married to each other. Also, the uterus thing? Referring to emergency contraception and birth control, just to be clear. The only government issue there should be determining a) what the side effects are and how severe they might be and b) making sure that gets disseminated. Whether or not I should take it is my decision, fullstop, end of story.

Going back to my point about the Tea Party, its really frustrating to see a movement built on "clean out the crap" and "fiscal responsibility" when most of the Tea Party Patriots are turning out to be above the poverty line, college educated white men. It's like they're trying to take baby steps out away from the GOP umbrella while still keeping the soles of their feet planted firmly in the GOP's ('grass') roots.

Offline Asuras

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2010, 11:49:11 PM »
So, why don't you like the Democrats?

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2010, 02:10:52 AM »
Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? If the so-called Tea Party Patriots (and I resent their hijackery of Boston's brilliant Revolutionary PR, I really do) are looking to pick up the (supposedly) all-powerful independent vote with more of the ultra-conservative bullshit we see from the Republican party, they really are doing it wrong.

I'm not sure I have much of a political point, here, so maybe this thread belongs in Bad and Ugly. They're all crazy. I'm tired of lesser of two evils. I would like a third option, please. A real one.

I would like a third-party option that really does believe in lesser government, not lesser government except for where it covers my uterus and Neil Patrick Harris' right to marry. These are not government issues. I would like a third-party option that is interested in what its voters have to say, not the wackos that run the lobbyist groups. I would like a third-party option that caters to the goddamn voters, for once.

*hisses and spits at the Dems and the GOP and the Libertarians and the Tea Party and everyone else stinking up Washington D.C. right now*

I agree, it seems the so called Tea Party movement is nothing more then a repackage of the ultra right conservative base.   Back to Bush-Cheney.   A nice marketing ploy to garner the disenfranchise independent vote.

Through I am not so sure of a third party.  Would it break a grid lock by-partisan.   Really don't think so,  the Libertines don't appeal,  socialist based parties don't appeal. 

And now with ruling by the supreme court with corporate campaign donations.   It looks like the grid lock will last for years.  Because the truth looks like.   Our leaders are in campaign mode throughout,  from  the first day sworn in, to the next election.  Just to keep their position.   So why not address that, take away this.  Limit terms for both senate and the house to two terms.   Make it truly a government by the people for the people. 

Not sure such an idea will work.  I like many is pretty much disenfranchised.   It sucks they cannot even pass a health bill.   I have a half older sister living with her husband and my nephews with lung cancer.   She works for the cable company been at it for eighteen years.   Her husband works also,  they have pretty good insurance through the company. But now she cannot get continued treatment because she has maxed the insurance payout.  Because she works she can't get help from medicaid.  Despite the fact she is paying for all those that don't pay.  So now she is faced with quit job to get treatment,  and more the likely lose home.   Or no treatment and keep home.  Hope that the cancer just goes away.   

So I am fed up with the government.  Both sides alone suck with their plans.  Work get something done.  Do what you were elected to do.     

Sorry for the rant, it pisses me off.

Offline Jude

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2010, 04:21:39 AM »
No, they're not catering to voters. They're trying to score brownie points. There is a difference, and the tactic is incredibly divisive.
What would that difference be?  Can you give me an example of each and explain how they differ?
Health care is the here-and-now, and that's fine. Jobs are a big issue, and I know that many of my own acquaintances care more about whether they have a job than whether two people they hardly know can get married to each other. Also, the uterus thing? Referring to emergency contraception and birth control, just to be clear. The only government issue there should be determining a) what the side effects are and how severe they might be and b) making sure that gets disseminated. Whether or not I should take it is my decision, fullstop, end of story.
I agree with you that it should be up to you whether you use birth control and emergency contraception.  As long as it's safe it should be readily available (and even if it's not completely it should be arguably with a warning label on it) in my opinion, but not everyone feels that way.  I think they're wrong, but to say certain topics should be out of the political discourse because you think people are wrong on them is essentially... well, basically saying "I'm right so everyone should accept that and STFU."
Going back to my point about the Tea Party, its really frustrating to see a movement built on "clean out the crap" and "fiscal responsibility" when most of the Tea Party Patriots are turning out to be above the poverty line, college educated white men. It's like they're trying to take baby steps out away from the GOP umbrella while still keeping the soles of their feet planted firmly in the GOP's ('grass') roots.
Because the Tea Party "Patriots" are Republicans.  That's the big secret, there's no difference whatsoever.  They're simply a rebranding that doesn't answer to the current enshrined GOP authority which allows them to expose the same ideals without having to deal with an anti-incumbent sentiment or be responsible for the GOP's obstructionist strategy.  If Tea Party Candidates are elected I guarantee you they'll be absorbed right back into the GOP in due time; when it's politically convenient.  They may differ on some things, but it's like the difference between Bernie Sanders and the Conserva-dems.
Through I am not so sure of a third party.  Would it break a grid lock by-partisan.   Really don't think so,  the Libertines don't appeal,  socialist based parties don't appeal.
I'd argue that both already exist in the current political mainstream, but as a subsection of each party.  There's a layer of socialists on the fringe of the Democratic bloc (note I did not say party, Bernie Sanders is no Democrat) and a couple true libertarians somewhere floating in the GOP cesspool (Ron Paul is the only one who comes to mind).
And now with ruling by the supreme court with corporate campaign donations.   It looks like the grid lock will last for years.  Because the truth looks like.   Our leaders are in campaign mode throughout,  from  the first day sworn in, to the next election.  Just to keep their position.   So why not address that, take away this.  Limit terms for both senate and the house to two terms.   Make it truly a government by the people for the people.
So you make the government more true to the people by preventing the people from re-electing whoever they want with term limits?  I'm not really seeing your point here at all.
Not sure such an idea will work.  I like many is pretty much disenfranchised.   It sucks they cannot even pass a health bill.   I have a half older sister living with her husband and my nephews with lung cancer.   She works for the cable company been at it for eighteen years.   Her husband works also,  they have pretty good insurance through the company. But now she cannot get continued treatment because she has maxed the insurance payout.  Because she works she can't get help from medicaid.  Despite the fact she is paying for all those that don't pay.  So now she is faced with quit job to get treatment, and more the likely lose home.  Or no treatment and keep home.  Hope that the cancer just goes away.
That sucks, I wish your sister the best.
So I am fed up with the government.  Both sides alone suck with their plans.  Work get something done.  Do what you were elected to do.
For all the talking that was done about the Senate Healthcare Bill, I can only name around 10-15 provisions that were actually in it.  Given it was a little over 2000 pages, there was probably a lot more than just that going on, but it wasn't communicated well to the public just what comprised it.

People who were interviewed by the media stuck to their talking points on the matter pretty strongly, and instead of educating the American Public on it, both sides continued to give the same biased account of what was going on.  In the end there was no debate over legitimate differences and constructive dialogue, and because of this it turned into the same nonsensical banter that pundits engage in on a daily basis, except on a national scale, involving elected officials.

I'd say this happened because the democratic party is largely inept, Obama has enough issues to contend with and he made the mistake of actually trusting the rest of his party to handle it without being babied every step of the way, and the Republicans played dirty (which they are truly the masters of doing--they're lightyears ahead of the Democrats when it comes to political manipulation and savvy).  However the public is every bit as responsible for this as our elected officials are.

We put morons into power, we fell for the same mixture of scare tactics, bullshit, and rhetoric that the Republicans have been using since Reagan (and possibly earlier, Nixon and Goldwater may be the genesis of that), and a good portion of our populace has largely tuned out from political discourse entirely.  Senate elections, if you average them from on and off years for the presidential election, only have a little over half of the population participating in them, and yet you have so many crying that the will of the people isn't being heard, respected, or followed.  If that's the case, it's because they're not keeping up with the civic duty to vote and educate themselves properly on the issues beforehand.

We live in a Republic, where the vast majority of officials with the power to make important decisions are elected by the people.  Those who are not are primarily appointed by those we do elect, and therefore we are still indirectly responsible for them.  Either you believe this and accept that we, as a whole, are responsible for the failures of our government or you believe that the system is rigged and we live in a state of subtle tyranny.

I prescribe to the first belief and thus recognize that the people are what's wrong.  Washington's a symbol of our failings to make good political decisions, not the other way around.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 04:46:24 AM by Jude »

Offline Xenophile

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2010, 04:26:11 AM »
Sadly, any kind of third party options will only be available if the Americans abandon the bipartisan electorate system, and replace it with a, say, parliamentarian system.

But that won't happen. Sorry guys, you have to stick with the Democrats and the Republicans for some time more.

Online Doomsday

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2010, 04:40:34 AM »
This is why I hate politics. You elect these people, they work for you, but when they get into office they won't give you the time of day and they now care more about lobbyists than their constituents.

I no longer live there now, but in Ohio, ex-Governor Taft gave British Petroleum a bunch of tax cuts so that they wouldn't move out of my town. So while BP is pulling in record profits, the school district was forced to eliminate 150 jobs because those tax cuts came right out of the local budget.

Offline Jude

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2010, 04:51:18 AM »
This is why I hate politics. You elect these people, they work for you, but when they get into office they won't give you the time of day and they now care more about lobbyists than their constituents.
That's the narrative that's set forth, but do you really know it's true?  Think statistically and based on facts and not emotion or anecdotes you hear; you probably don't have the evidence to back it up.

I don't blame you for feeling that way, but there's a large amount of political ideas which are implanted into us uncritically by our environment which are never actually justified to us.  We pick up these notions because it's what we are from a friend of a friend of a friend... but you have to wonder just who is at the end of that line.  Is it a statistician, political science, journalist, watchdog, or politician that formulated that idea based on careful research or did that opinion materialize out of thin air?  Or worse; is it a calculated deception?
I no longer live there now, but in Ohio, ex-Governor Taft gave British Petroleum a bunch of tax cuts so that they wouldn't move out of my town. So while BP is pulling in record profits, the school district was forced to eliminate 150 jobs because those tax cuts came right out of the local budget.
That position is perfectly defensible as a move for the good of the town.  If a large employer moves out, people lose their jobs, it can be enough to set the economy into a tailspin that results in a local depression.  Take the Flint Michigan vs. GM scenario for example.

If people lose their jobs, that tax revenue is going away one way or the other, which means the teachers lose their jobs no matter what.

Online Doomsday

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2010, 04:59:08 AM »
Is it justifiable that BP was practically holding my town hostage? It's not like they were operating in the red before the tax cuts.

Offline Jude

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2010, 05:06:20 AM »
Corporations don't consider their overall financial status when deciding what to do in a particular location.  There's 2 factors to the move.

1)  Are we making money in that area (and BP could very well have been turning a loss in your town alone, or just barely getting by)

2)  Could we be making more money in another area (Maybe they had a more lucrative offer elsewhere)

Their goal is ultimately to go whereever makes them the most profit blindly, because the goal of a corporation is to make profit.

Online Doomsday

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2010, 05:07:20 AM »
I understand that. I just don't think it's right.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2010, 10:34:09 AM »
There is nothing wrong with the Libertarian Party a good number of us are far more pragmatic than our peers. But no one wants smaller government, less government because to do that we would need to hit the entitlements and the industrial complexes various interests and the education special interests.

For one example of the problem take education. I would ,like most Libertarians, favor parents educating their children making it a legal demand like we demand they feed their children. How they do that would be up to them the free market and the reduced taxes returned to the parents from eliminating public education (NO vouchers) would be there. I see it as a lobby to suck up more power and to protect special interests teachers jobs and political maneuverings not education of a child at all. At most I would leave funding and managing education to the states where it constitutionally belongs. So if we did get enough power to matter we would decimate several interests at once. I would argue the same if we took on Social Security, Medicaid, military reductions, commerce etc.

Its sad though that if one looks at our platform overall as a party most Americans in principle would agree to most of it I suspect.

Offline consortium11

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2010, 04:18:20 PM »
I want to like the Tea Party. Honest to God I do. I want there to be a more mainstream limited government movement (the US Libertarian party always manages to bring up 3 or 4 either batshit insane or unelectable policies to shoot themselves in the foot) and I wish the general spirit behind it spread to this side of the Atlantic (where the major parties are all talking about cuts... but arguing that they'll be the ones to cut less and ring-fencing the popular but vastly expensive government programs)

But look at the Tea Party.

Look at it.

Even in sympathetic pieces it's member are talking about the tyranny of the Federal Government and how they have to stock up on ammo and supplies. They seem to be an outlet for birthers, "Obama is a terrorist", "Obama is a Muslim" and the "we don't have to pay tax" movement. For every sensible person there it appears there's a half dozen louder voices screaming conspiracy theories and half-truths. In the same way that the Green movement has often been hijacked by other issues (generally on the left) it appears the Tea Party group has also been taken over by other issues (generally on the right).

It's also been an interesting example of how political will can change. When Ron Paul (a man I actually respect and like despite having some overly radical ideas) was running for the GOP nomination on virtually the same platform as the Tea Party he couldn't find a mainstream republican to support him for love nor money and the standard talking heads were dismissive and insulting even going as far as to call him and his supporters probably domestic terrorists. A year and a half later and what do we have... those same people applauding the goals and aims of the group.

And Palin.

Ah Palin.

Ignoring all the other issues with her the basic fact that during her time in government she racked up huge deficits and used a (very basic) form of the same socialism that the majority of the Tea Party supporters hate should immediately disqualify her from being a leading voice for the group.

Offline Serephino

Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2010, 08:48:10 PM »
I still think we should get rid of parties all together.  The system is clearly broken.  The elected officials care more about party loyalty than actually getting anything done.  When a Republican actually supported Obama on something (health care I think it was) it was huge news.  It really shouldn't be.  They were all elected and thrown together to serve a purpose.  Why is working together such a horrible thing?? 

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2010, 07:41:57 PM »
I personally think it's about time for America to lose it's democracy. We're hitting that earmark and I know one of the two parties is going to throw the feces into the fan so it doesn't matter which to me personally but... yeah, it's about that time. I vote for the Platocracy next.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Tea Party? You're doing it wrong.
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2010, 07:51:17 PM »
I think Consortium summed up how I feel much more eloquently than I could have. I want to like the Tea Party, I really do. But I can't.

I just can't.