Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well according to Senator Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and others were examples of "unelectable" candidates who got elected. He also said that people should vote on principle NOT by who the MSM tells them is "electable". Obviously those who voted for these candidates voted their conscience and if they got elected, so can Ron Paul.
Rand Paul got elected because he wasn't really running against any stiff competition and Democrats are very unpopular right now.
Rand Paul got elected because he wasn't really running against any stiff competition and Democrats are very unpopular right now.
What are you talking about? He was a massive underdog for his own party's nomination. The GOP establishment backed 2 candidates before Rand made it to the general.
Not quite. He believes that its a states right issue to legalize marijuana. That actually is not the same as saying that a state should have the right to outlaw it. In fact, that would be completely contradictory to liberty aspect of his platform.
Agree, thanks for clearing this up
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
That's fine, but he still doesn't support ending abortions. He just thinks states should make the decisions. From his own website:
So basically, if all 50 states were to pass laws legalizing abortion, he would have no problem with it.
I disagree with you here. If he wants to define "life begins at conception" on a federal level, this will probably force the hands of the states to outlaw abortion. Unless the states want to keep abortion (which will now be murder) on the books as legal. This is why I disagree with RP being classified as a libertarian... also probably one of the reasons he himself doesn't consider himself libertarian. I think we have debated this issue before, and this would be a good question for Ron Paul in a debate to clear up his stance on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
He just doesn't want to audit them - he wants the Fed ended. Again, from his website (under the title 'End the Fed'):
Agree, but first he wants to audit it (as he said in the debates)... Then he will probably end it. Also, I love that most candidates are now jumping on the bandwagon of "auditing the fed"... however, I don't believe they will carry through with their promises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay
This is indeed 'out there' also. End ALL personal income taxes but then state that he supports the Fair Tax? With no federal revenue from taxes, states would make up the difference by charging more in local sales and other state income taxes. Again, very out there.
In todays day and age this may be out there. But a lot of people don't realize that the federal government makes 40% of its revenue from fees not related to income taxes. Just wanted to point that out so that people understand where the governments revenue would come from.
But I think we can both agree on one thing... Ron Paul 2012!
According to O'Reilly, the tea party is dumping Bachmann and rallying around Perry. If that is true, that makes no sense to me.
O'Riley does not run the Tea Party. Some TP are for Perry, some are for Bachmann, that is the beauty of the TP - the grassroots Tea Party - we have core values but vast differences of opinions.
In my own home we don't agree on which candidate to vote for - we have our own opinions. The polls that the media puts out (regardless of whether it is CNN, FOX, NBC...), regardless of who is electable or not electable I will vote for the candidate I feel will build our country. No more going by the polls. No more listening to commentators. No more voting for the lesser of two evils (because yes both parties have 'evils'). My choices in the 2012 election will be because I have done my homework.
You are right clodhopper
Quote:
“it makes no senseâ€
. And btw Perry and Romney are not even on my list of viable candidates.
Quote:
The real tea party is a movement, not a group. That would be collectivist thinking (adding them into a label.) Therefore it is very difficult to explain.
It's like.. if a huge chunk of people from all diverse backgrounds started to like a few ideas. But then someone doesn't know how to explain the phenomenon, therefore they give it a label. Then after that, the label is blamed for everything! LOL
MadeInAmerica – that even made me laugh! Your definition is the best one I have seen so far.
I am a grassroots Tea Partier, a movement – like you said, not a group. I do like Herman Cain, I am doing more research on his connection with the Feds. Bachmann impressed me Monday evening, but ...nothing I can actually put my finger on... so I am still watching her.
Atxcio -
Quote:
I'm just trying to understand who the people who identify themselves with the Tea Party in the polls are. If they are not real Tea Party folks, who are they?
I am trying to figure out the same thing myself.
My friends and I talk about the candidates. I will give you an average of our group: Say I have 9 friends, the poll would go this way: 3 votes Cain. 2 votes for Bachmann, 2 votes for Paul, 1 for Huntsman, Romney and Santorium. So as MadeInAmerica said – with my poll, Cain wins. Has ANY poll shown Cain as a front runner? Ever?
The movement is still strong; the groups....they are being divided because of small, petty differences, kinds sounds like our government for the past 50 yrs or so. We all love our country. We all love our freedom. We all want America to succeed. We have different issues, different viewpoints - we are all still Americans.
Atxico -
Quote:
GOP voters identify themselves with the Tea Party.
The core principles and values of the tea party movement: limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.
If a 'republican' does not agree with these three things he/she is not identified with the original Tea Party movement. Romney is trying to co-opt the movement, it won't work. He may co-opt a group of Tea Partiers, but he will not co-opt the movement. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, the same goes for them - they may get a group, but they will not overtake the movement.
Look at this example: Romney Draws Sparse Protest at Tea Party Event - NYTimes.com Romney Draws Sparse Protest at Tea Party Event
“...Mr. Romney has never been a favorite of Tea Party supporters, who dislike the health care overhaul he carried out as governor of Massachusetts. And when he was announced as a speaker for the Tea Party Express national bus tour, FreedomWorks, a libertarian advocacy group that has fostered the growth of the Tea Party movement, withdrew in protest.
Along with a coalition of a dozen other Tea Party and liberty groups, FreedomWorks also organized a protest before Mr. Romney’s speech Sunday...â€
Simply because the Tea Party Express (a Tea Party group) invited Romney to speak, did not mean the original Tea Party movement 'approved'. In fact some of them protested the event. Some of us believe Romney is a RHINO. I am not saying I would have protested, it was the groups choice on who to invite, but I am saying I would not have attended.
The Tea Party started out as a "movement" but was soon co-opted by the Tea Party Express Inc. the Koch Bros and Grover Norquist among others with corporate agendas. It is now nothing more than another policital machine. Even Ron Paul won't associate himself with the Tea Party.
Mohawkx-
Groups are being co-opted. "Everyone" is jumping on the Tea Party band wagon - whether it is to gain something or whether it is to criticize.
The Tea Party movement still believes simply in: 1) Fiscal Responsibility 2) Constitutionally Limited Government 3) Free Markets. Candidates, politicians, the media, talk show host, Tea Party Groups try to tell others what to think about the Tea Party; It is really simple, refer to 1-3.
This may be a strange analogy but I think I can make my point. Lets say the Red Cross opened the first thrift store. It was a good idea. It helped raise funds and helped those that couldn't afford new clothes. Today there is a thrift store 'around every corner'; they all 'do' the same things (help the ones in need) but they don't all have the exact agenda. That is sorta like the Tea Party - the core values are the same. All these groups, they 'supposedly' still keep the core values, but they have a different agenda. Sometimes things get twisted, just like with 'thrift' stores most are there to help others, some have went into grey areas on what is actually done to 'help' others. Some Tea Party groups have been co-opted.
The grassroots Tea Party movement, we still believe in the beginning of the movement.
Mohawkx-
Groups are being co-opted. "Everyone" is jumping on the Tea Party band wagon - whether it is to gain something or whether it is to criticize.
The Tea Party movement still believes simply in: 1) Fiscal Responsibility 2) Constitutionally Limited Government 3) Free Markets. Candidates, politicians, the media, talk show host, Tea Party Groups try to tell others what to think about the Tea Party; It is really simple, refer to 1-3.
This may be a strange analogy but I think I can make my point. Lets say the Red Cross opened the first thrift store. It was a good idea. It helped raise funds and helped those that couldn't afford new clothes. Today there is a thrift store 'around every corner'; they all 'do' the same things (help the ones in need) but they don't all have the exact agenda. That is sorta like the Tea Party - the core values are the same. All these groups, they 'supposedly' still keep the core values, but they have a different agenda. Sometimes things get twisted, just like with 'thrift' stores most are there to help others, some have went into grey areas on what is actually done to 'help' others. Some Tea Party groups have been co-opted.
The grassroots Tea Party movement, we still believe in the beginning of the movement.
Mohawkx-
Groups are being co-opted. "Everyone" is jumping on the Tea Party band wagon - whether it is to gain something or whether it is to criticize.
The Tea Party movement still believes simply in: 1) Fiscal Responsibility 2) Constitutionally Limited Government 3) Free Markets. Candidates, politicians, the media, talk show host, Tea Party Groups try to tell others what to think about the Tea Party; It is really simple, refer to 1-3.
This may be a strange analogy but I think I can make my point. Lets say the Red Cross opened the first thrift store. It was a good idea. It helped raise funds and helped those that couldn't afford new clothes. Today there is a thrift store 'around every corner'; they all 'do' the same things (help the ones in need) but they don't all have the exact agenda. That is sorta like the Tea Party - the core values are the same. All these groups, they 'supposedly' still keep the core values, but they have a different agenda. Sometimes things get twisted, just like with 'thrift' stores most are there to help others, some have went into grey areas on what is actually done to 'help' others. Some Tea Party groups have been co-opted.
The grassroots Tea Party movement, we still believe in the beginning of the movement.
The beginning! It could not get anymore grassroots...
Ron Paul knows that sometimes the truth is going to hurt bad!
Tells it like it is. No sugarcoating it, to make it look like a rose but smell like the crap it is.
Truth is not pretty all the time, like the delusional ignorant would like to think it is, to feel all good inside.
The guy is not lying to you just to get elected, like all the others standing on that stage. He tells you the truth, so you can be informed and an educated citizen of the most unique nation on earth.
O'Riley does not run the Tea Party. Some TP are for Perry, some are for Bachmann, that is the beauty of the TP - the grassroots Tea Party - we have core values but vast differences of opinions.
In my own home we don't agree on which candidate to vote for - we have our own opinions. The polls that the media puts out (regardless of whether it is CNN, FOX, NBC...), regardless of who is electable or not electable I will vote for the candidate I feel will build our country. No more going by the polls. No more listening to commentators. No more voting for the lesser of two evils (because yes both parties have 'evils'). My choices in the 2012 election will be because I have done my homework.
You are right clodhopper . And btw Perry and Romney are not even on my list of viable candidates.
MadeInAmerica – that even made me laugh! Your definition is the best one I have seen so far.
I am a grassroots Tea Partier, a movement – like you said, not a group. I do like Herman Cain, I am doing more research on his connection with the Feds. Bachmann impressed me Monday evening, but ...nothing I can actually put my finger on... so I am still watching her.
Atxcio - I am trying to figure out the same thing myself.
My friends and I talk about the candidates. I will give you an average of our group: Say I have 9 friends, the poll would go this way: 3 votes Cain. 2 votes for Bachmann, 2 votes for Paul, 1 for Huntsman, Romney and Santorium. So as MadeInAmerica said – with my poll, Cain wins. Has ANY poll shown Cain as a front runner? Ever?
The movement is still strong; the groups....they are being divided because of small, petty differences, kinds sounds like our government for the past 50 yrs or so. We all love our country. We all love our freedom. We all want America to succeed. We have different issues, different viewpoints - we are all still Americans.
Atxico - The core principles and values of the tea party movement: limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.
If a 'republican' does not agree with these three things he/she is not identified with the original Tea Party movement. Romney is trying to co-opt the movement, it won't work. He may co-opt a group of Tea Partiers, but he will not co-opt the movement. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, the same goes for them - they may get a group, but they will not overtake the movement.
Look at this example: Romney Draws Sparse Protest at Tea Party Event - NYTimes.com Romney Draws Sparse Protest at Tea Party Event
“...Mr. Romney has never been a favorite of Tea Party supporters, who dislike the health care overhaul he carried out as governor of Massachusetts. And when he was announced as a speaker for the Tea Party Express national bus tour, FreedomWorks, a libertarian advocacy group that has fostered the growth of the Tea Party movement, withdrew in protest.
Along with a coalition of a dozen other Tea Party and liberty groups, FreedomWorks also organized a protest before Mr. Romney’s speech Sunday...”
Simply because the Tea Party Express (a Tea Party group) invited Romney to speak, did not mean the original Tea Party movement 'approved'. In fact some of them protested the event. Some of us believe Romney is a RHINO. I am not saying I would have protested, it was the groups choice on who to invite, but I am saying I would not have attended.
A Granny's point of view on the Tea Party.
What most forget, or don't even know about, is voting in the Primaries!!!
The Primaries are it!
Do not pass the Primary voting day, or it is sure to be the lesser of two evils in the General.
Ron Paul - 2012
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
