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.

 

TEA Party Candidates Claiming some major wins in GOP Primary.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

edit on 9/16/2010 by whatukno because: dbl post




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 






The TPM is just a bunch of GOP members that want to appear independent. Follow the money; the TPM wouldn't even exist if it weren't for these Republican supporters.
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...


I don't understand this attitude that is held by the left. Why the need to denigrate the TPM? And why do it with lies and falsehoods?


However this TPM thing could blow up in the conservatives face if it scares the moderates enough to get out the vote and some of these TPM folk are a few bricks shy of a load imo. Perhaps not enough to cave in the entire movement but make it so impotent that it's nothing more than fodder for TV comedians. Sort of like it is now.


This is what I mean. You totally ignore the results the TPM has achieved in their short existence.

I don't want to pursue this any further, except to say that the maturity level of political discourse is America is at a new low. Instead of discussing ideas that would further the goals of our nation, people resort to snide little remarks and cutdowns. This is the (lack of) leadership we are showing our youth. and all it will do is to breed a new generation of brickbats. :shk:

Discuss issues instead of throwing mud. You may learn something.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
This is what I mean. You totally ignore the results the TPM has achieved in their short existence.



I am genuinely interested. What have they achieved? All I see them doing is getting one Republican closer to losing in a general election than another. I guess I do not understand how backing the GOP is bringing about any change?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
LOL in response to the CNN article; Sarah Palin is not a role model for women in politics let alone for anyone in politics. Sarah Palin likes money, lots and lots of money. That's all.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



I am genuinely interested. What have they achieved? All I see them doing is getting one Republican closer to losing in a general election than another. I guess I do not understand how backing the GOP is bringing about any change?


Backing the GOP? They are constantly fighting the GOP. They have endorsed little known candidates with conservative values against the party machine, and they have won the primaries, time after time. They have pushed conservatism, smaller government, less taxes, abiding by the Constitution as main values. Their message is resonating throughout America and is bringing people to the polls. That is the American way, and it should be encouraged instead of denigrated.

As far as what happens on Nov. 2, we'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Backing the GOP?


Yes, backing the GOP!


They are constantly fighting the GOP.


With other GOP candidates. How does that turn out?


They have endorsed little known candidates with conservative values against the party machine, and they have won the primaries, time after time. They have pushed conservatism, smaller government, less taxes, abiding by the Constitution as main values. Their message is resonating throughout America and is bringing people to the polls. That is the American way, and it should be encouraged instead of denigrated.

As far as what happens on Nov. 2, we'll just have to wait and see.


Everything else you said sounds really nice but unfortunately it is just stuff you said. Which Republicans that they are pushing are not Republicans again?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Democrats dont like the Tea Party because they think they are directly tied to the GOP.
Republicans dont like the Tea Party because they think they are stealing their thunder.

I laugh at both of the above.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Maybe we should call them the GNP then? Does that make it taste better? Perhaps Democrats do not like them because they have heard that song before but in a different key.



It is a new, shinier corporate funded theocratic movement. It is just like the old stuff, but with cheaper ingredients.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Need I say more?

Two.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



Originally posted by mishigas
Backing the GOP?

They are constantly fighting the GOP.



With other GOP candidates. How does that turn out?


Or with Independents, or Libertarians, or others.

But I see your point. Any GOP candidate = BAD. Any DEMOCRAT candidate = GOOD.

Very simple and easy to understand. Higher logic not required.



Everything else you said sounds really nice but unfortunately it is just stuff you said. Which Republicans that they are pushing are not Republicans again?


Everything I said is what most Americans believe and stand by. And that is the simple truth that will bury the Democratic party in November.

And what was so inherently bad about a candidate being GOP again?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Or with Independents, or Libertarians, or others.


All I see are Republicans being backed by the tea parties. As for independents? I hardly see failed Republican candidates turn 'independent' as 'politically independent'.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Or with Independents, or Libertarians, or others.


Such as...?


But I see your point. Any GOP candidate = BAD. Any DEMOCRAT candidate = GOOD.


Apparently not. My point is only about the Tea Party fooling itself and people like you be pretending to be looking for something new but just pushing Republicans.


Very simple and easy to understand. Higher logic not required.


Give it a shot just for fun. Try it using the things I actually wrote and see if you come to a different conclusion, an accurate one.


Everything I said is what most Americans believe and stand by. And that is the simple truth that will bury the Democratic party in November.


Most Americans and Democrats are two different things? Tell me about this higher logic.


And what was so inherently bad about a candidate being GOP again?


What is different about it?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





All I see are Republicans being backed by the tea parties. As for independents? I hardly see failed Republican candidates turn 'independent' as 'politically independent'.


Well, these are the primaries, where the winning candidate will run in the general election, right? You'll likely see Indy's, etc., in the general election.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 






Apparently not. My point is only about the Tea Party fooling itself and people like you be pretending to be looking for something new but just pushing Republicans.


Who says we have to be looking for a new way to butter bread? Sticking to good old solid conservative principles is all we ask.


Very simple and easy to understand. Higher logic not required.


Give it a shot just for fun. Try it using the things I actually wrote and see if you come to a different conclusion, an accurate one.


I was referring to your logic. You seem to have a severe case of the ass for Republicans for some reason.


And what was so inherently bad about a candidate being GOP again?


What is different about it?


A perfect example of what I meant about your logic.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Who says we have to be looking for a new way to butter bread? Sticking to good old solid conservative principles is all we ask.


Is this your way of admitting the Tea Party is a farce and just another way to support Republicans while pretending to be independant? Last time I checked the whole point of the Tea Party was that they wanted CHANGE. How is backing the same old Reps going to achieve that?



I was referring to your logic. You seem to have a severe case of the ass for Republicans for some reason.


Nope. I have an issue with any group running around screaming about how they are looking for something different all while just pushing through the same old same old. If the Tea Party was pushing old Democrats, I would be saying the exact same thing.



A perfect example of what I meant about your logic.


My logic being my ability to see that a Republican is a Republican?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Well, these are the primaries, where the winning candidate will run in the general election, right? You'll likely see Indy's, etc., in the general election.



Is this the logic I am missing? The Tea Party is backing Republicans in the primaries just to ditch them and go support some independent that has not shown up yet? So you think they were behind career Republican O'Donnell just so they can then support and independent to run against her? Can you help me out with this "logic."



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 

Wuky, I was saying Bush was liberal since the day he sent in ground troops in Iraq. The "revisionist history" idea doesn't fit for me. There are a number of us in the US who feel this way. His fiscal policy and the manner in which he conducted the war was markedly left leaning. Then again, the previous "most hated Republican" among the political left before Bush came around was generally believed to be Richard Nixon. Nixon was extremely liberal vs the Barry Goldwater conservative crowd. Yet the left despised him. In a similar vein, Bill Clinton adopted what was arguably a conservative fiscal and military policy after the GOP won COngress 2 years into his first term... yet the right hated the man like no other. I guess somehow it is more threatening if the opposition starts to resemble what your support, a friend of my enemy is my enemy type thing, I suppose.

As for "my candidate", yes I have one and I know what he stands for. His name is Joe Miller. He defeated Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary and is expected to win the seat relatively easily. IMO, the man represents sanity in Washington, something which is sorely lacking currently. He supports a balanced budget law, pay as you go, trimming the fat from government budgets (including UN financial support, foreign aid, Dept of education, and funding for the arts). He also has sworn to support rescinding Obamacare, which is a huge issue to me and is a make or break deal. I simply cannot support anyone who agrees with this abomination and stain upon this nation's fabric. Furthermore, I have met the man (albeit briefly) and consider him to be genuine.

On the obstruction vs progress front, it is a take it as you can issue in my mind. From my view, horriffic damage has been done to this nation over the past 2 years. This damage has the distinct potential to destroy the US. Before we can move forward, we MUST move backward far enough to undo this damage. Even then, I worry that much of this damage has already caused irreparable harm and will be difficult to escape from unscathed... but we have to at least try.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 



s this the logic I am missing? The Tea Party is backing Republicans in the primaries just to ditch them and go support some independent that has not shown up yet? So you think they were behind career Republican O'Donnell just so they can then support and independent to run against her? Can you help me out with this "logic."


You are missing the point, or you don't know how elections work in the US.

In a primary election, each party chooses it's ultimate candidate. Republicans do NOT run against Democrats or Indy's at this point in time. It's a race to see which R is the candidate in the general election. So you are really confused, and I can see why.



Is this your way of admitting the Tea Party is a farce and just another way to support Republicans while pretending to be independant? Last time I checked the whole point of the Tea Party was that they wanted CHANGE. How is backing the same old Reps going to achieve that?


I don't know where you're 'checking', but the message you're bringing back is wrong.

Backing the same old Reps? As in O'Donnell vs Castle? You really are confused.

You seem to be very afraid of the TPM, as evidenced by your need to denigrate them at every opportunity with lies and falsehoods. You say things like "Last time I checked the whole point of the Tea Party was that they wanted CHANGE", and then you want me to defend that? Jesus man, grow up. Talk issues, and stop grasping at straws.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas

You are missing the point, or you don't know how elections work in the US.

In a primary election, each party chooses it's ultimate candidate. Republicans do NOT run against Democrats or Indy's at this point in time. It's a race to see which R is the candidate in the general election. So you are really confused, and I can see why.


Not even close. I know exactly how the elections work thank you very much. I believe I pointed out that Paladino was the Tea Party choice in the NY primary who will then lose to a democrat in the general so I got it thanks. What you are trying to claim is that the Tea Party decided to support Republicans in the primary just to later abandon them for some yet un-named Independent? That is what I am not following.


I don't know where you're 'checking', but the message you're bringing back is wrong.

Backing the same old Reps? As in O'Donnell vs Castle? You really are confused.


O'Donell, the Republican with two decades in politics? How is that not "same old?"


You seem to be very afraid of the TPM, as evidenced by your need to denigrate them at every opportunity with lies and falsehoods. You say things like "Last time I checked the whole point of the Tea Party was that they wanted CHANGE", and then you want me to defend that? Jesus man, grow up. Talk issues, and stop grasping at straws.


What lies? Point one out.

The Tea Party is not advocating doing away with all incumbents and bringing in new faces? I am really wrong about that?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
Whether you happen to be an Independent, a Republican or a Democrat, what could be so wrong with that concept?


There's nothing wrong with that concept. That's a GREAT concept! The people in there clearly don't have our interests at heart.

But... then what? I mean, taking out the trash in Washington DC is a great idea, but not if it's going to be replaced with more trash...


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The talk from the tea party candidates are no different than what many of the established Republican candidates stated... 'anti-establishment, anti-tax, anti (enter name here).


That's my concern. That they are Republicans dressed in Tea Party clothing. And until we can see and hear what they have to say, we don't know what kind of a tea partier they are.
I admit, I haven't done a lot of research on the TP candidates, but some of them sound like right-wing Republicans. I suspect they have just latched onto the name (like Beck and Palin did) so they could ride the wave of the next popular political movement, but I could be wrong.


Originally posted by sweetliberty
It seems they are supporting her after all.


Of course they are. Republicans are obstructionist. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They know she's a LOT closer to Republican than she is Democrat, so of course they'll back her.


Originally posted by whaaa
However this TPM thing could blow up in the conservatives face if it scares the moderates enough to get out the vote ...


That's the other possibility. The one I'm hoping for, frankly. I agree with about half of their ideas, but have no idea what the actual candidates support. I REALLY like some of their ideas and I REALLY hate some of them... But I couldn't support them because of the ones I really hate.



The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[64][65]

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law:
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop "cap and trade"
3. Demand a balanced federal budget:
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality:
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010:
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)


Source



But parties have clear leaders who can attempt to synthesize the differences between leaders and attempt to rein in the centrifugal forces with the parties.

The Tea Party movement has no such feature and that could eventually cause it to become even more inchoate than it already is.


Source



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join