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.
Yes, those original Ron Paul supporters, like I, know who they are and the values they support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The Tea Party is not a political party. You people have no clue what the TEA Party is, here going on 9 years after they got the label.
Based on these posts, do enlighten us rather than just say, oh we're wrong and not go into detail on why we are wrong and try to correct us. People like you are the boss that says "Your report is ****," but not explain why it is so we'll send the same ****** report because you don't explain why it is ****.
Edit: Did I ever say the Tea Party is a political party? I at best alluded to it. I was more talking about those politicians aligned with them or full blown members.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Ron Paul, the GODFATHER of the TEA Party, had the young vote.
The Pauls have the young vote because they are libertarians who happen to be Republican. They take the younger voters who are disenfranchised by the Republicans who hate civil rights but aren't Democrat as well, and also the traditional conservatives, even "independent conservatives."
Last edited by mkpunk; 02-28-2015 at 11:05 AM..
Reason: Added a question.
If you are running for office or hold office, you cannot possibly be TEA Party material. You have then become who they support, or who they don't.
That might be the biggest clue as to who and what the TEA Party is.
The Tea Party is not some politician, or a political party.
The Tea Party are those that support individuals, involved in politics.
The Pauls have the young vote because they are libertarians who happen to be Republican. They take the younger voters who are disenfranchised by the Republicans who hate civil rights but aren't Democrat as well, and also the traditional conservatives, even "independent conservatives."
You just contradicted yourself....
You cannot have it both ways.
It is not a Republican v. Democrat thing, that is going to make that change everyone wanted when Barack promised it and then double and tripled down on the same controlling progressive intrusion into the lives of free people.
It is a Conservative v. Progressive cancer, thing.
Don't confuse the two. It will make you look like an idiot if you do.
Our Federal government was not established to help and feed the people.
Their whole purpose was to secure rights and keep us free, with liberties for all, so we could feed ourselves.
That has all changed since the Progressive Era where it was determined freedom was the enemy of the Federal Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The 10th amendment dictates who is incharge of abortion, when the Supreme Court determined the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to rule against it..... Or for it, for that matter. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government any power to make a ruling against it.
That is where the 10th Amendment takes over.
Power not delegated in the Constitution, is reserved for the individual States.
If we look at the letter of the law of the constitution (without including amendments), we would still allow slavery (only outlawed by the 13th amendment), women couldn't vote (the 19th amendment outlawed this,) the president would not have term limits (though all besides FDR went for two terms before the 22nd amendment,) Senators and Representatives could increase their pay at any time (the 27th amendment limited that to the beginning of congress sessions,) and also no popular vote for the Senate, nor would there be terms for it (changed in the 17th amendment.) Remember, like the Supreme court, the senate appointments were a lifetime term.
Also views like this forget the elastic clause (including executive actions) allows the federal government to be big for all things necessary and proper. If you want to go back to states rights, go back to the Articles of Confederation which was a failed attempt at setting up the United States.
First off, the rape comments were made by TWO Republicans backed by the Tea Party who were up for congressional races. Rep Todd Aiken of Missouri and Richard Mordock, the Republican nominee for the Indiana US Senate Seat. They both made similar rape comments during their debate cycle. The first quote is Aiken's view on rape from August 2012 and the second quote is Mordock's view on rape from October 2012.
Todd Aiken, fair point as he was in Washington dating back to 2001 and did earmarks even though he was a fairly traditional conservative against federal bans and abortion. The problem lies is that conservatives (if only including Tea Party and "independent conservatives") voted to keep him in office in 2010.
Richard Mordock was entirely Tea Party backed to replace incumbant Republican senator Richard Lugar. Similar to Aiken, I think it is because they are fairly aligned with Tea Party beliefs. Mordock has questioned the constitutionality of programs like Medicare and Social Security and also is for the Medicare voucher and increasing the Social Security age (something I agree with actually.) Mordock also doesn't support the Dream Act for illegal immigrants (a stance that is pretty widely shared with Tea Party members.) He also supported the (Paul) Ryan Path to Prosperity Plan in order to decrease debt spending. Mordock if he wasn't Tea Party himself aligned with the Tea Party and even attended Tea Party rallies in his campaign.
As you can see Aiken wasn't exactly a Tea Party candidate even though he shared ideology while Mordock
Even it were TWO that's a small number compared to the entire Teaparty and it did not reflect their core views. If those remarks were backed by the rest of the Teaparty then please supply a link proving it. Did you miss this from one of the links you provided?
"-U.S. Rep. Todd Akin says he misspoke when making a comment about rape and abortion during the taping of The Jaco Report"
You are right the Teapaty doesn't support the Dream Act or amnesty for illegal aliens. That's a bad thing?
If we look at the letter of the law of the constitution (without including amendments), we would still allow slavery (only outlawed by the 13th amendment), women couldn't vote (the 19th amendment outlawed this,) the president would not have term limits (though all besides FDR went for two terms before the 22nd amendment,) Senators and Representatives could increase their pay at any time (the 27th amendment limited that to the beginning of congress sessions,) and also no popular vote for the Senate, nor would there be terms for it (changed in the 17th amendment.) Remember, like the Supreme court, the senate appointments were a lifetime term.
Also views like this forget the elastic clause (including executive actions) allows the federal government to be big for all things necessary and proper. If you want to go back to states rights, go back to the Articles of Confederation which was a failed attempt at setting up the United States.
I don't see an amendment to the constitution coming down the pike, to allow the federal government to ban abortion. Do you?
Funny how there had to be an amendment to ban alcohol on the federal level and one to repeal that federal ban. But not for drugs. The president now has appointed bureaucratic agencies that can and do by-pass the constitution constantly. DEA / ATF / FBI / NSA....
Even it were TWO that's a small number compared to the entire Teaparty and it did not reflect their core views. If those remarks were backed by the rest of the Teaparty then please supply a link proving it. Did you miss this from one of the links you provided?
"-U.S. Rep. Todd Akin says he misspoke when making a comment about rape and abortion during the taping of The Jaco Report"
You are right the Teapaty doesn't support the Dream Act or amnesty for illegal aliens. That's a bad thing?
Whether it as an actual misspoken reply or not is not relevant. Todd Akin had made the comment and sadly once a comment like that is out there, the genie is out of the bottle. A sitting Representative looking for his seventh term (at which point, most become untouchable) lost.
As for support, the Tea Party abandoned Akin mainly because they knew he'd lose. For Mourdock, there's no real knowing if the Tea Party abandoned him or not. A number of Republicans did stand by Mourdock and others abandoned him.
The DREAM Act, I am for as if the students went through the US school system, why should they not be allowed to stay in the country and instead be forced back to where they came from (and may only have family ties to.) If your parents came from Ireland when you were young and you were forced to be sent back to a country that you may never have been to, how would you like that?
But like nay part of any party the tea party will support h the candidate to have input. No different than Bill Clinton did and his supporters when Obama took over committee. If the leadership of any segment cannot bring their base to polls they become less effective within. the party. Only the foolish stay away from polls and think they gain anything really.
Whether it as an actual misspoken reply or not is not relevant. Todd Akin had made the comment and sadly once a comment like that is out there, the genie is out of the bottle. A sitting Representative looking for his seventh term (at which point, most become untouchable) lost.
As for support, the Tea Party abandoned Akin mainly because they knew he'd lose. For Mourdock, there's no real knowing if the Tea Party abandoned him or not. A number of Republicans did stand by Mourdock and others abandoned him.
The DREAM Act, I am for as if the students went through the US school system, why should they not be allowed to stay in the country and instead be forced back to where they came from (and may only have family ties to.) If your parents came from Ireland when you were young and you were forced to be sent back to a country that you may never have been to, how would you like that?
He's ONE person for God's sake! It is relevant that he said he misspoke. Haven't you ever said something that didn't come out the way you intended it to? Once again, his sentiments do not reflect the entire Teaparty organization.
I disagree with Mourdock's claims that a pregnancy by rape was God's plan but I am certainly not going to demonize the whole Teaparty for his ridiculous remark or try to claim without proof that they agreed with what he said.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree then about the Dream Act. Allowing these so-called kids to remain here just because their parents brought them here illegally is rewarding the parents for violating our immigration laws. We have enough of our own kids struggling to pay for college and competing for jobs in this country. Their parents can go back their homeland with them so what is the problem? If their parents brought them here illegally what do you mean by sending them back to a country they have never been to? They were born there and learned the culture and language of their country thru their parents.
the Tea Party abandoned Akin mainly because they knew he'd lose.
He lost because the grassroots abandoned him after his crass remarks that were unbecoming of their principals and he was held accountable.
It wasn't a matter of getting a republican elected. It was about supporting someone with integrity and ethics, that will uphold his oath to the US Constitution.
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.
