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.
The NYT has no clue what the Tea Party is either. Still 9 years after Ron Pauls tea party the Progressives are clueless.
Sounds like no one knows what the Tea Party is besides the few that call themselves the Tea Party. That isn't good news for them because it shows their branding has fail and hasn't gained any traction in 9 years.
Then what is the Tea Party? What do they stand for? What are their demographics? What do their politicians do on the national level?
The demographics and national level questions are still on the table, even what they stand for is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arabianhorsebreeder
With all due respect, it appears some of the more liberal posters do not understand what TEA stands for; Taxed Enough Already. TEA Party members are tired of the govt'st lack of accountability with spending of our tax dollars. Extreme? Please explain. IMO, "extreme" is a term used by some politicians to marginalize those that disgree with them. Remember the town hall meetings that took place across the country in 2009-2010? Angry constituents were labeled "terrorists" by Pelosi, et. al., and by gosh, many politicians have refused to face the wrath of the people ever since.
Anyway, TEA Party followers have a deep loyalty to our country and are tired of the apologists currently in the W.H. No, it's not perfect, however we don't need a leader that refuses to lead by example, instead preferring to lead from behind. If he tried that with a horse, more than likely he'd get his brains kicked to high heaven. Furthermore, by leading from behind, he is taking the cowards way out- let those in front take the fall/blame UNLESS the outcome is positive, then he happily basks in the limelight when he didn't earn it.
Sorry, it's late and I'm beginning to ramble. Have a great evening.
I know TEA is an acronym referring to "taxed enough already" mainly because by most findings those who identify as Tea Parties are richer at about 200k average income to start. Also are they just against taxation and spending, or are there other issues they push for as voters or vote for in office?
The demographics and national level questions are still on the table, even what they stand for is.
I know TEA is an acronym referring to "taxed enough already" mainly because by most findings those who identify as Tea Parties are richer at about 200k average income to start. Also are they just against taxation and spending, or are there other issues they push for as voters or vote for in office?
There are a host of CD lefty posters who claim that tea partiers are ignorant, uneducated hillbillies who ride tax-funded scooters. What is it?
The truth is that the tea party is amorphous, and not really illuminating nomenclature. It's about individualism vs. collectivism. That's why Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Walker, etc. are on one side and Hillary Clinton is on the other.
There are a host of CD lefty posters who claim that tea partiers are ignorant, uneducated hillbillies who ride tax-funded scooters. What is it?
The truth is that the tea party is amorphous, and not really illuminating nomenclature. It's about individualism vs. collectivism. That's why Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Walker, etc. are on one side and Hillary Clinton is on the other.
Note how these lefty posters demonize the Teaparty for the remarks or actions of one or two? There are no leftist organizations out there where there are radicals in them either? That doesn't mean they represent the majority.
There are a host of CD lefty posters who claim that tea partiers are ignorant, uneducated hillbillies who ride tax-funded scooters. What is it?
The truth is that the tea party is amorphous, and not really illuminating nomenclature. It's about individualism vs. collectivism. That's why Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Walker, etc. are on one side and Hillary Clinton is on the other.
How can people against abortions, gay marriage or racist (thinking the African-Americans are the ones on welfare)? Many Tea Party members are anti-abortion which means that an individual (in this case a woman) doesn't have the right to choose if they should have the baby or not except in a few situations (Tea Party on Abortion.) Many Tea Party members are against gay marriage, even civil unions (Tea Party on Civil Rights.) A good number of Tea Party members believe in the hype of Welfare Queens and the racial overtones of it. A real individualist would want civil rights because those help the individuals.
Note how these lefty posters demonize the Teaparty for the remarks or actions of one or two? There are no leftist organizations out there where there are radicals in them either? That doesn't mean they represent the majority.
No but if there are a good number it is a representative sample. As I posted above, a number do think abortion should be highly regulated (which for those for liberty makes them look like flip-flopping statists) and the same can be said about how they don't want gay marriage, even civil unions for homosexuals.
No but if there are a good number it is a representative sample. As I posted above, a number do think abortion should be highly regulated (which for those for liberty makes them look like flip-flopping statists) and the same can be said about how they don't want gay marriage, even civil unions for homosexuals.
There aren't a good number of them though. The rape remark was made by one person. We don't even know if they were a card carrying member of the Teaparty just that they lean right. Please provide a link that the majority of the Teaparty opposes civil unions for gays. I'll wait. Where in the world are getting the notion that the majority of them have flip flopped on abortion?
How can people against abortions, gay marriage or racist (thinking the African-Americans are the ones on welfare)? Many Tea Party members are anti-abortion which means that an individual (in this case a woman) doesn't have the right to choose if they should have the baby or not except in a few situations (Tea Party on Abortion.) Many Tea Party members are against gay marriage, even civil unions (Tea Party on Civil Rights.) A good number of Tea Party members believe in the hype of Welfare Queens and the racial overtones of it. A real individualist would want civil rights because those help the individuals.
I lean pro-choice but it is a difficult issue in terms of individualism. What about the individual rights of the child? In any case it is the classic wedge issue. The right to abortion has been established and is not going away anytime soon. Democrats told us in 2000 that W Bush would prohibit abortion, but 15 years later, people are still getting abortions., for better or worse.
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.
That doesn't mean they represent the majority.
