Can someone explain to me what the Tea Party movement actually is, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:14 PM by Southern Guardian

reply to post by Jenna

I am fairly certain that if the tea parties all rallied for third party candidates they would break some ground, so why has there not been any third party tea party candidates winning these races?

edit on 25-9-2010 by Southern Guardian because: fixy

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:15 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Its too bad the vast majority of candidates endorsed by the tea parties have been republicans, and the cycle continues I guess.

No, it's too bad the media only pays attention to the few Republican candidates with tea party endorsements that they can find dirt on.

Edit: In response to the post directly above this one, I don't know. If I had to guess I'd say it's likely because we've only had the primaries so far and to get on a ballot you have to register as a Republican or a Democrat. Libertarians and Independents aren't up for the primaries in my state at least. Then there's also the fact that Republican and Democrat candidates have the RNC and DNC to provide funding for their campaigns so they have more money to play with when it comes to commercials, speaking events, and fliers. Hard to cut the head off the two headed demon when you can't even get any exposure from the media who'd rather talk about the few they have dirt on than talk about them all.

edit on 25-9-2010 by Jenna because: Added edit.

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:17 PM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Its too bad the vast majority of candidates endorsed by the tea parties have been republicans, and the cycle continues I guess.

No, it's too bad the media only pays attention to the few Republican candidates with tea party endorsements that they can find dirt on.

I disagree. I think these republican candidates have received the attention they had because of the tea parties and their vocal support. I don't think the media is is playing to one attention because if this was both a Republican and Democratic wipe out, it'd be better news. Not one third party tea party candidate has won or gained sufficient votes, so why the absent tea party votes? The last guy, Kennedy, gained a petty 1% of the vote in mass.

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:21 PM by babybunnies

It's a distraction from the Republican party having to admit that they have no real leadership and absolutely no agenda, 2 months before a major election.

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:29 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I don't think the media is is playing to one attention because if this was both a Republican and Democratic wipe out, it'd be better news.

Oh please. You know as well as I do that our society likes dirt better than anything. Sad, but true. The media digs and digs and digs until they find some juicy tabloid-worthy dirt and then do nothing but harp on that at the expense of all else for weeks on end. There has been a concerted effort by the media to discredit the tea parties since they started. We've already had this discussion at least once.

They won't start talking about the decent tea party endorsed candidates until after they win an election. Up until that point their only hope to get in the news is to have done or said something stupid on camera 20 years ago.

Not one third party tea party candidate has won or gained sufficient votes, so why the absent tea party votes? The last guy, Kennedy, gained a petty 1% of the vote in mass.

Because other local tea party groups were supporting Brown in that particular race. Brown had more tea party supporters vote for him than Kennedy did, so he won.

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:35 PM by whaaa

As in all things political....

Follow the money to find out who and what any agenda has as it's purpose.

Here is the guts, the heart and soul of the TPM.

www.npr.org...

theweek.com...

Doesn't look to grassroots to me.

edit on 25-9-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-9-2010 @ 11:56 PM by Jenna

reply to post by whaaa

Who owns NPR

Noam Chomsky has criticized NPR as being biased toward ideological power and the status quo. [...] Thus, political pragmatism, perhaps induced by fear of offending public officials who control some of the NPR's funding (via CPB), often determines what views are suitable for broadcast, meaning that opinions critical of the structures of national-interest-based foreign policy, capitalism, and government bureaucracies (entailed by so-called "radical" or "activist" politics) usually do not make it to air.

Source

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 12:11 AM by whaaa

reply to post by Jenna

You are much to savy to use old no.19.....aren't you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've been to perhaps 6 TPM meetings, covering them for our local cable access channel.
Basically they are nothing more than Obama rag fests. No platform or ideas other than Obama must go. And a place or shrine to worship Glen Beck.

edit on 26-9-2010 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 12:27 AM by trailertrash

Sure. The super rich are backing what is said to be a "bottom up" movement but which, in reality, is no more than a ruse to bring the entire country to the far right of the social spectrum from whence a neo aristocracy will emerge to take power from the hapless democracy which is all that remains of the USA. In this new model there will be the landowners and the serfs just like long ago in Europe.

That is what the tea party is in reality. It is all about gullible, ignorant people being led by the nose and who has the reins? Well let's say the Koch brothers, super billionaires who "just happened to show up and speak at the recent rally in DC. It is really so boring.

For more information about how so many normally good people can be so deceived, read about the Germany of the late twenties up until the end of 1933.

Only a few can see what is really happening in the USA and they are countered by the powerful who train their followers to call them "unpatriotic" and evil liberals etc....

A sad state but it seems now all but certain.

We have become the Corporate States of America and big business is beginning it's overt rule at long last.

tt

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 01:45 AM by sequoyah

Wow, I have totally lost any faith in any level of credible discernment by the poster at ATS after reading this thread. You guys are as clueless as any. Awaken my brethren get past Republican vs Democrat it is indeed an illusion my friends that you must graduate past quickly because there are many more important lessons after that.

Do you understand the techniques of mind control? Turn your TVs off and tune into what is really going on.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 02:22 AM by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Jenna
Oh please. You know as well as I do that our society likes dirt better than anything.

Well I disagree, I think a wipe out of both the Democrats and Republicans after 150 years of dominance will make better news but the fact is there simply has not been enough support or movement, neither by the tea parties or by voters in general. I do not think we can blame the media for the voting decisions of Americans. There is plenty of information out there, choices that are made clear, and yet we continue to see major party candidates voted in by tea party voters as with other voters. As seen, we had Kennedy gain 1% of the Mass vote for example while the Republican candidate won. You cannot view that in any other way aside from the fact the majority of tea party voters went for the Republican candidate, and it continues to be this case. Not once have we seen the fruits of a third party candidate win from the tea party movement.

They won't start talking about the decent tea party endorsed candidates

Well these third party candidates simply do not receive enough support, and that is nobody elses fault but the voters who choose not so. You listed me 80 other libertarian candidates supported by tea party voters, if none of those 80 candidates win and its back to Republicans, would it not be fair to say that they simply did not receive enough tea party support? If thats the case why should anybody waste their time giving as much attention to candidates who do not have the backing? The media is not fair, it will always give attention to those with big support, and yet third party candidates have yet to gain that from tea parties.

Because other local tea party groups were supporting Brown in that particular race. Brown had more tea party supporters vote for him than Kennedy did, so he won.

Exactly, Brown the Republican had far more tea party votes and this can be accounted for all the other tea party candidates who won who were Republicans. I am yet to see a tea party movement behind a third party candidate that actually wins. It appears the majority of tea party voters simply don't care much for third party options.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 02:23 AM by EnlightenUp

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

I've written many a post like that but don't have the attention span to put it all together into a coherent writeup or thread-- a bunch of self-entitled spoiled brats on their own form of public assistance indeed. Death panels sound like a good idea at times if properly applied. I'll be Nazi just long enough and just to the right degree to get rid of the old, selfish, useless folks trying to drag us back into the gutter and doing a pretty good job of it.

ETA: I'm sick of hearing how terrible the kids they raised grew up to be.

edit on 9/26/2010 by EnlightenUp because: we're your demons, be afraid.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 03:16 AM by Jenna

reply to post by whaaa

Nope, I just think you see what you want to see as opposed to what's actually there. Painting a large group of people with the same broad brush never works.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 03:21 AM by ManBehindTheMask

reply to post by whaaa

thats the issue, youre trying to use youre thinking with your ideology instead of whats actually going on.....see you said you were reporting, if you were truly reporting you wouldnt be biased about it.........

ive been to WAY more than 6 and the atmosphere wasnt "anti Obama" it was "anti government control" and "anti political party"

You cannot report objectively with such bias Wukky

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 03:22 AM by Jenna

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
There is plenty of information out there, choices that are made clear, and yet we continue to see major party candidates voted in by tea party voters as with other voters.

Do I really need to point out that we've only had primaries since the tea parties started going on in force? Do I really need to point out that, with the exception of special elections, no one has been voted in for anything yet? Really?

Not once have we seen the fruits of a third party candidate win from the tea party movement.

Because there haven't been any elections yet besides primaries and a special election or two. Go ahead and spin it however you want, but it's kinda hard to vote someone in before an election is actually held.

Well these third party candidates simply do not receive enough support, and that is nobody elses fault but the voters who choose not so.

See above.

The media is not fair, it will always give attention to those with big support, and yet third party candidates have yet to gain that from tea parties.

See above, yet again.

I am yet to see a tea party movement behind a third party candidate that actually wins.

And yet again.

At least have the intellectual honesty to wait until after the elections to start complaining about whether or not tea party endorsed candidates are elected.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 03:27 AM by snusfanatic

reply to post by davespanners

Its a right of center non partisan movement. They're pro judeo christian values, anti deficits and anti government interference in the economy. Its a populist movement most closely related to pat buchannon, ross perot. Basically its a lost wing of the republican party. But i'd argue it is not part of the republican party, ofcourse the strong influence of parties in our binary political system means that the tea party will either spell the revitalization or destruction of the republican party, through the building of a super coaliton or splitting the right end of the spectrum's vote.

Some say its a manufactured element of the republican party. But i deeply disagree with this for both personal and more academic reasons. my own experiences and studies inform me that its probably an arm of the shadow-conservative elements in America. Groups like the hertitage foundation and americans for tax reform, commentators like glenn beck and bill oreilly are the most likely institutional creators of the movement. To call these 'part of the republican party' would be sadly mistaken.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 05:58 AM by saltheart foamfollower

This will explain EVERYTHING that those on the left REFUSE to see.

In this coming election, NOT ONE incumbent in the Democrat party has lost. Hear that? NOT ONE.

The Tea Party is basically anti big government. They want the power that is theirs to remain in their hands as defined by the Constitution. They do not want a nanny state. You know, what everyone else wants.

Generally, they do not want all the auspices of control that other countries offer. They are sick and tired of bailing out banks, corporations, individuals for their mistakes. They are sick of government telling them what to do. Also they are sick of our government pushing the Globalist agenda.

As you can see OP by those that are stuck in the dispute of the two parties, they HAVE to attempt to place the Tea Parties into the Republican party, otherwise they have a mental breakdown due to their cognitive dissonance. Some have broken away from that psychological disorder.

As I said, if the Tea Party was sooooo Republican, why have they attempted and SUCCEEDED in getting rid of some of the entrenched incumbants? Why has the Political entrenched attacked Tea Party backed candidates? Why do Dem supporters CONTINUALLY attempt to paint the movement as a promelgation of the Republican party? IMO, they are frightened of what the people are calling for.

They are afraid that they will have to be RESPONSIBLE once again for their own lives and actions.

That is what I discern the basic tenet of the Tea Party movement. The return of Libertarian ideals of responsibility and freedom.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 06:55 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
It is composed mainly of conservatives, many of whom hold racially biased beliefs

Wrong.

Tea Party Crasher and Infiltrators
Use google. It's your friend.
Far left intollerant idiots have been infiltrating peaceful Tea Party (TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY) gatherings. They have organized with the purpose of smear and lies .. trying to make the Tea Party - which is about smaller and more financially responsible government - look like a bunch of racists.

It simply isn't true.

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 07:20 AM by davespanners

Wow..

I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction to my question

Ok so from what I understand now. The TEA party is a group of people that some of you see as a Grass roots movement of ordinary folk and others see as Republicans under a different name.
They are against big government / new taxes and feel that the government inacts laws that it has no mandate to enact.
It isn't a political party in the true sense but they campaign for candidates from other parties.

Is this right?

reply posted on 26-9-2010 @ 07:30 AM by playswithmachines

reply to post by Jenna

Surely they take their name from the original 'tea party' where a group of rebels (a certain mr. Franklin among them) decided to board a ship at night & dump the tea in the harbour rather than pay the outrageous taxes imposed by the British?
Was this not the beginning of the 'independence' movement that led to the civil war?
I do try to keep tabs on US history