It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the "Tea Party" become a viable third party?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I'm all for more than two parties in the United States, not just a third but let's get a true plurality of parties and some good independents out there too!

My concern though is that the Republican Party would try to torpedo any strong libertarian party because it would steal votes from them, while they pay lip-service to libertarians in order to advance their neo-conservative agenda.

If these Tea Party guys start to draw the ear of conservatives in America you can bet the GOP will try everything in their arsenal to take them down. There's a ton of money to be made off of controlling the conservative agenda, and they know that.

Even more important than the money-factor is the power that they would loose from a TPM party. After President W. Bush not many in the conservative camp buy the neo-conservative line anymore, and liberals positively hate it, so they could face serious marginalization or reformation into a Christian party if they loose the libertarian vote.




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WolfofWar
 


Well New York is definably an interesting place unique to the rest. But, do you remember this map?

emptysuit.files.wordpress.com...

There does seem to be sides being taken, and it crosses red and blue states. So who knows.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


All true.

EXCEPT..

The Tea Party formed under Bush... not Obama.. it was hi-jacked by the Republican Party as soon as Obama won..


The tea parties formed in 2007 as a campaign movement to support Republican candidate Ron Paul. It makes no sense for you to argue that the tea parties were hijacked when they were formed specifically to back a Republican candidate.



but only because many of the original Tea Party members, out of anger and frustration with the Republicans and Democrats, used their votes as weapons and purposefully cast against Republicans.


So they used their votes as weapons to purposefully cast against the Republicans to vote in a Republican candidate?


I voted Democrat,


Just to clarify, you voted for Obama?


But to think the movement started BECAUSE of Obama is ignorance of fact.


The tea parties in 2008 gained more members because of the election of Obama. The tea parties started in 2007 in opposition to Democrats, hence the campaign drive to move Republican candidate Ron Paul towards the presidency.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 




The tea parties formed in 2007 as a campaign movement to support Republican candidate Ron Paul. It makes no sense for you to argue that the tea parties were hijacked when they were formed specifically to back a Republican candidate.


The "Tea Parties" were formed in 2006 under and actual political party called the Boston Tea Party, a right wing fringe group that protested over spending and taxation.. The Tea Parties under that name only ever expanded under the medias fanning, prior to "tea party" they were tax day protests and so forth.. Ron Paul himself held a cult following of Libertarians, fringe Republicans and Constitutionalists.. he had very little following within his own party. Most Republicans are socialist.. they are naturally against the ideas Paul represents.



So they used their votes as weapons to purposefully cast against the Republicans to vote in a Republican candidate?


Are you purposefully ignorant? The to parties are hardly black and white.. there are numerous shades of gray. Paul himself (I assume your talking about Paul again since you made no sense) is shunned by Republicans, voting him in was no different than voting third party, because the vote was cast against the running Republican candidate..



Just to clarify, you voted for Obama?


No, I voted (for President) Chuck Baldwin (who Ron Paul endorsed) of the Constitutional Party (Barr was an ex-Republican and a loon)



The tea parties in 2008 gained more members because of the election of Obama.


Never denied it. But they started "under Bush" .........


Everything is so Republican/Democrat with you..



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The "Tea Parties" were formed in 2006 under and actual political party called the Boston Tea Party,


So your saying to me that the tea parties started their own political party in 2006 only to find themselves voting and campaign for a Republican candidate by 2007?


Are you purposefully ignorant? The to parties are hardly black and white.. there are numerous shades of gray.


Oh ok, so you would have me believe that Ron Paul is a 'different' kind of Republican? How many 'different' Republicans and Democrats have we had in the past? Plenty.


Paul himself (I assume your talking about Paul again since you made no sense) is shunned by Republicans,


Ron Paul is an essential part to the GOP in which he appeals in a segment of the conservative voting population towards the GOP. He is all talk and likewise he brings in libertarian and conspiracy theorists towards the party.



No, I voted (for President) Chuck Baldwin (who Ron Paul endorsed) of the Constitutional Party


But you just claimed that you voted Democrat?



Never denied it.


Thats great.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
THe tea party is a viable party....the GOP.

The tea parties have are a joke....and yes...I know that some never intended that result....but it is what it is....



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


and no, I never said the tea parties formed under Obama. I clearly stated that today they represent Democratic opposition, they represent mostly disgruntled voters from the 2008 elections.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Like Rockpuck, I openly endorsed the Democratic party on the grounds that the GOP did NOT represent libertarianism in even the slightest way, shape, or form. I remember seeing hardcore libertarian bloggers endorsing Obama, because he at least seemed to have a clue (McCain didn't) and also because they were fed up with the supposedly "small government" Republican party increasing federal spending and expanding executive powers.

But those people aren't the current Tea Party. Hell, I see Tea Party candidates suggesting prohibition of alcohol (because that worked out so well the last time we tried it
). That's positively anti-Free-Market, and anti-Individual-Liberty.

I regret ever having anything to do with the so-called "Tea Party Movement," but I do think that it's important that people understand that it didn't start out as a GOP/Neo-Conservative movement. Media outlets turned it into a GOP movement.

I'm done with political involvement. I view it the same way that I view Tic-Tac-Toe: The only way to win, is to not play.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theWCH
Like Rockpuck, I openly endorsed the Democratic party on the grounds that the GOP did NOT represent libertarianism in even the slightest way, shape, or form. I remember seeing hardcore libertarian bloggers endorsing Obama, because he at least seemed to have a clue (McCain didn't) and also because they were fed up with the supposedly "small government" Republican party increasing federal spending and expanding executive powers.

But those people aren't the current Tea Party. Hell, I see Tea Party candidates suggesting prohibition of alcohol (because that worked out so well the last time we tried it
). That's positively anti-Free-Market, and anti-Individual-Liberty.

I regret ever having anything to do with the so-called "Tea Party Movement," but I do think that it's important that people understand that it didn't start out as a GOP/Neo-Conservative movement. Media outlets turned it into a GOP movement.

I'm done with political involvement. I view it the same way that I view Tic-Tac-Toe: The only way to win, is to not play.


I am curious if people really think MSNBC had more to do with the tea party going so right than say Dick Armey or Palin or Bachman could have?



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theWCH
Like Rockpuck, I openly endorsed the Democratic party on the grounds that the GOP did NOT represent libertarianism in even the slightest way,


Just to clarify, you voted Democrat? Or did you just find them more favourable during the 2008 elections? Its interesting you and Rockpuck are saying so much on this thread considering your past posts. You essentially support the Democrats who made it clear they were going to bring about healthcare reform, made it clear that they were going to withdraw troops by 2011 and increase troops in afghanistan, made it clear that they were going to bring about financial reform, and yet you and rockpuck here pulled a fuss over all this since Obama got elected... yet you supported the Democrats in 2008? I find that rather hypocritical.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by theWCH
Like Rockpuck, I openly endorsed the Democratic party on the grounds that the GOP did NOT represent libertarianism in even the slightest way,


Just to clarify, you voted Democrat? Or did you just find them more favourable during the 2008 elections? Its interesting you and Rockpuck are saying so much on this thread considering your past posts. You essentially support the Democrats who made it clear they were going to bring about healthcare reform, made it clear that they were going to withdraw troops by 2011 and increase troops in afghanistan, made it clear that they were going to bring about financial reform, and yet you and rockpuck here pulled a fuss over all this since Obama got elected... yet you supported the Democrats in 2008? I find that rather hypocritical.


Ummm...I've always opposed the Iraq war, and have been fairly sympathetic towards the current state of Afghanistan/Pakistan. I'm highly critical of the current medical institutions in this country. I've been critical of the Glass-Steagall repeal, on the grounds that you either need to go full-out free-market, or have regulations in place which protect institutions from their own stupidity (and I think that the first option would bring the best results). I worked for a PAC that campaigned for Obama. And I wasn't the only libertarian doing that sort of thing: libertarianobama.blogspot.com...

In short, unless I get drunk, blackout, and claim views on ATS which I do not hold, you're mistaking me with somebody else. Or you're lying. I don't hold the neo-con views that you seem to want me to hold. Members of this board have actually labeled me a socialist.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by theWCH]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I think that MSNBC/CNN portraying the Tea Parties as racist get-together's was a smear campaign that couldn't work beyond about a six month window. I think that Fox News (among others) broadcasting Sarah Palin as a Tea Party champion killed us. The truly crushing part -- for at least some of us -- was that, to a large extent, Palin really was the queen of the ball by that point. The leftist neo-cons beat the crap out of us, in our own arena.

These things happen, I guess.


[edit on 17-7-2010 by theWCH]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Talkin with you is like talking to a brick wall.. I don't really get how its hard to understand?

I voted Democrat because my congress critter voted for the bailouts.. but among other things, he lied on his general stance on a lot of issues. In many cases Republicans voted Democrat, especially the angry fringe and the centrist.. out of anger. I voted Democrat on all offices except President (neither of the two parties will ever get my vote again) .... as I've said on Page one.

I don't think a lot of people, especially the moderates.. expected such a massive majority for the Dems.. no party should be unopposed, ever. And I think for that reason alone the dems will loose seats in November.

Had dems or reps won it wouldn't matter.. the Health Care bill is a product of the industry.. its really more Republican than Democrat, its a Fascist bill that forces us into private corporate policies.

If I were Liberal, id be just as mad at what was done under my name. There really is no difference between moderate Republicans and Democrats.. all the same tools serving the same Corporations.

But for some, like myself, using votes to swing either way not for a candidate but against one is the only source of gratification in a system that doesn't represent us.

Liberals call me "far right wing" .. conservatives call me "liberal" .. you'd call me a Republican. Libertarianism is the best option I've found, keep government out of our lives. Viable party? No.. but it beats not voting at all..



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I've said it before and I'll say it again. What does the amount of GOP funding affect the opinions and joining of people?

The Tea Party is nothing more than a RL movie. Movies can be bad or good. Both kinds get the same amount of funding. Thus the funding has no correlation to if people go to see it or not. Likewise, this RL movie called the tea party can get no funding or lots of funding. People join out of their free will regardless.

The tea party is simple a blockbuster hit. People liked it. So it succeeded. The fact that it got lots of funding does not affect the people joining it and leading it by their will power.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join