Michele Bachmann: Dems need another 'pink slip'

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I think the problem is fairly simple: the Tea Party isn't really a party. It never has been, nor was it ever intended to contend against republicans or democrats.

In fact - it would probably be a bad political move to try and create a strong third party on conservative principles, as it would completely split the Republican party and absorb the Libertarian party. It would have little effect on the Democrats.

The Tea Party are more of a reformative group rather than another party contender. If anything - they should 'take over' the republican party and lead it in a direction more representative of political conservative principles (religious and moral conservatism should not be confused with political conservatism).

reply to post by Aim64C


Honestly? People need to forget their petty ass politics for a little while and vote in ANY third party that will rush in campaign finance reform that will effectively make buying elections impossible.

Green party, tea party, green tea party, rubber #ing doll party, its doesnt matter. We need a clean house, and a plan to cram through real reform to the electoral system itself. And then Americans can go back to bickering over health care and gay marriage.

Right now, the US is under attack by a hostile foreign power. The multinational corporate and wealthy elite. And we need to unite for just a little while, and defend ourselves against them by voting in a whole new batch of un bought and paid for politicians who we can get to work for us at least for a little while. We need to ram that reform through as fast as humanly possible, because the minute we get fresh blood in, the sharks will be circling.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Too caught up in ideals to face reality, I see.

Have you ever stopped to realize that most of the push for a third party comes from the conservative base?

I'm not opposed to more parties, but the problem is not with having smaller parties, but with still having a large progressive party.

large parties can employ some strong-arm techniques, such as a filibuster, to counter the actions of another party. A largely homogeneous party, like the democrats, can run the train on Congress and completely shut-down bills from third parties.

From a strategic standpoint - I'd try and fracture the Democrats. The difficulty is finding an ideological base to do it - the democrats have largely become comprised of "more government = good" ideologues, and while not exactly socialist or communist, members of the party don't exactly see a fundamental problem with bringing more under federal jurisdiction.

Thus - it is to the Tea Party's advantage to gain greater influence within the Republican party.

The only other option is to make the republicans illegitimate and absorb their member base - a daunting task, indeed - but one that may be possible if the republicans fail to present a hard front to the democrats.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

Too caught up in ideals to face reality, I see.

Apparently, you are.

You do realize that they are utterly ignoring the will of the people right now, dont you?

None of the mechanics you stated matter one little bit of the politicians in office all refuse to work for the people, and serve another master.

We HAVE to get people in who are not part of the two party system. You can say what you like about my "idealism." Clearly, you do not know me from my posts, etc. If you did you would know that idealism is not my cup of tea, at all.

We cannot afford civil unrest. The corporate backed media is perfecting their little media staged coups in the mid east as we speak. If we get unruly here, it will be the perfect excuse to cry "domestic terrorists" and show faked up videos of crazed conspiracy theorists doing paramilitary crap and lock down the country.

Your brilliant strategy is what? Keep voting in the same two parties and hope something changes? Knowing that they are both actually funded by the same people?

No. We need to do what we should have done in 2008, but everyone was busy masturbating themselves for being progressive enough to vote in a "black" guy. We need to bypass the two party system and using the democratic system itself, reassert control of our nation.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

You do realize that they are utterly ignoring the will of the people right now, dont you?

Well, from my standpoint, yes, as anyone other than myself doesn't qualify as human, and therefor only I and my internal voices qualify as human.

Otherwise - the "will of the people" gets a little murky. Especially when you sit me and a member of the communist party down in the same room. There won't be much in the way of a "will of the people" there. Only an argument that will rage along a fundamental difference in personality and sense of being.

None of the mechanics you stated matter one little bit of the politicians in office all refuse to work for the people, and serve another master.

I can see how a failed attempt to vote a third party into power is such a winning strategy against the illuminati - or corporate thieves, "banksters" - or some other label that sounds like it came from a bunch of kindergarteners.

We HAVE to get people in who are not part of the two party system. You can say what you like about my "idealism." Clearly, you do not know me from my posts, etc. If you did you would know that idealism is not my cup of tea, at all.

You are either an idealist or a functionalist. You are concerned with how things get done. I'm merely concerned with getting them done - the how is not as important as the end result.

No. We need to do what we should have done in 2008, but everyone was busy masturbating themselves for being progressive enough to vote in a "black" guy. We need to bypass the two party system and using the democratic system itself, reassert control of our nation.

Who is going to do this?

The voters?

It's not as though there is a lack of third party candidates. I occasionally vote for a Libertarian or a Green party candidate. They are running one hell of a campaign if they get so much as 5% of the vote. None of them will -ever- hold an office in this state. It's not even worth considering.

Why? We had a guy running as an independent in a local election. Only received one vote. One. His friends and family didn't even vote for him.

So, your lollipop dreams of electing a third party into power are pure fantasy and not even worth considering in the scope of reality.

In the mean time - the two parties we do have continue to bicker over a mere 60 billion in cuts to a budget 1.4 trillion in the hole with the single largest budget expense projected to boom by over 30% in the next ten years.

We don't have time or the luxury of doing this in an ideal way through a third party. It will take at least a decade for a third party to gain enough traction to even begin addressing these concerns - assuming they could achieve steady growth and stay true to a set of centralized principles (which is doubtful with that kind of growth).

The things that need to be fixed need to be fixed now - preferably ten years ago.

Your brilliant strategy is what? Keep voting in the same two parties and hope something changes? Knowing that they are both actually funded by the same people?

If you haven't noticed, the Republicans are a bit fractured, to begin with. The "Tea Party" has helped a number of Republicans (closer to libertarians in philosophy, actually) lead successful campaigns and get into office to enact smaller-government legislation.

The problem is getting the more progressive republicans to go along with it.

The progressive republicans can be much more easily driven out of power in the party than forming an entirely new party. The Tea Party holds a lot more power over the Republicans than they would ever hold as an independent party (or even endorsing a smaller party).

Thus, the best solution is for the Tea Party to pressure the republican party and strong-arm the Democrats with this government shut-down as the fulcrum.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
what you guys don't understand is Govt. shutdown can only mean Obama stays in power but congress and senate closes shop, then it's Obama as a dictator and the Police force & army.

What you guys don't realize is that this would be a wet dream for Obama and those who pull his strings.

He already created more czar positions than any other president and has so many executive orders, all which bypass senate and congress.

Obama would love a shutdown!

Um... no. Gov't shuts down means no funding for the military thus no obligation for the military to follow the CIC.
realize that the US military is "voluntary" and should one side default on the contract, the other is well within their right to abandon the contract.

they would actually be well within their right, and duty, to defend the Constitution and remove the government oppressors....

... just a thought

Originally posted by Aim64C

Otherwise - the "will of the people" gets a little murky. Especially when you sit me and a member of the communist party down in the same room. There won't be much in the way of a "will of the people" there. Only an argument that will rage along a fundamental difference in personality and sense of being.

You just lost me.

This isnt 1950 or 1960. The only commies left in the world worth discussing own America right now, thanks to the right AND left wing. (China) And really, you are moving off into rhetoric land. Some discussions with some people are not worth having, and judging from the tag lines you use, Im going to guess you have been fighting commies since before I was born.

You, and people like you, are responsible for this mess. Those of us who are done playing cowboys and Indians are going to have to clean up after you. I know you cant see why a third party would be useful. You just want someone to hate, and you like two parties. You dont have to think much. Its Them and Us. With three, holy cow, you might have to use some intelligence to decide who to vote for!

I dont want to rehash the old days.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Just something I found out recently, thought I would share. For what it's worth, my father in law, who is a total asshat, former CEO of a regional medical center in Maryland, just retired in some posh subdivision near fort myers Florida. His neighbor, so he brags, is one of the original tea party folks. This guy and his rich ass friends started the whole thing. It may be in your best intreats to know that this guy is retired C.I.A.. I will give any specifics I can to prove this. Message me. These guys are real a$$holes, from what i've experienced.

reply to post by Wetpaint72


I believe you. I think it has been fairly obvious that at least some of the Republicans have "rebranded" themselves as the Tea Party to try and escape their share of the blame for the destruction of the economy. Not everyone forgets that before the election they were the ones foaming at the mouth for bailouts, and as soon as Obama won they all pretended to be against them.

Its all a con.

I voted Constitution party. Its not an infallible method, but you notice how much press the tea party gets? Thats a clue that it has been infiltrated by the same corporate jerks the other two parties have been. We do need to be aware that the people behind all this are smart and well informed. If we lose faith in the two party system, they can be a third party too. They are on top of what we want, they know and monitor sites like this one to stay aware of how we think. We just need to be clever and aware too. If you are seeing it on the corporate owned media, its one of two things. Its what the media wants you to believe, or its the media trying to undermine something you should believe. We just need to rely a LOT less on the media and much more on each other.

I have long argued that a great protest would be for a million or so of us to cancel our cable for a month. NO media. And let them know that their direct line into our hearts and minds isnt as sure a bet as they think it is.

Im really sorry you have to deal with that guy though. He sounds like quite the tool.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

You just lost me.

This was not unexpected.

This isnt 1950 or 1960. The only commies left in the world worth discussing own America right now, thanks to the right AND left wing. (China) And really, you are moving off into rhetoric land. Some discussions with some people are not worth having, and judging from the tag lines you use, Im going to guess you have been fighting commies since before I was born.

Son, I'm only 22 years old.

You missed the point because you paid far too much attention to the trees and forgot you were in a forest.

I'm a small-government political conservative. While I'm no fan of abortion - I believe the government has no business getting involved. My moral/religious conservatism is not allowed to rouse liberal government tendencies.

Sticking me into a room with members of the communist party (who do exist) will result in an argument resulting from an ideological disagreement that cannot be resolved.

We are both people. Both vote in this country. We both have incredibly different views on what to do and entirely different wills for our representatives.

Starting to get the picture? There are communists in the U.S. - they have their own registered party. There are socialists in this country - the majority of them affiliate with the Democrats. A number of my friends and I are equally disapproving of Obama - but some of them think he should have pushed harder for government healthcare and other such things. While we both contribute to his low approval rating - we do so for very different, and even opposing reasons.

Because of this - it is hard to tell what the "will of the people" actually is. I know what my will is. I know what the will of those I talk to is. But I can't know the will of everyone in the town I live in, much less the state or country.

You, and people like you, are responsible for this mess. Those of us who are done playing cowboys and Indians are going to have to clean up after you. I know you cant see why a third party would be useful. You just want someone to hate, and you like two parties. You dont have to think much. Its Them and Us. With three, holy cow, you might have to use some intelligence to decide who to vote for!

Please do not try and put words and ideas into my mouth. I am far beyond your feeble intellect and don't even consider myself part of your petty little existence. I'm about the most arrogant and conceited person you will ever run into, though you may not see it at first.

I have long been in support of a no-party system. Humans are simply not capable of it.

The average human intellect is incomplete and seeks to affiliate. Mine, and others like my own, are complete - or very close to it. We are virtually immune to group-think and tend to find large clusters of people chanting the same thing to be quite insulting to our gene pool.

None the less - we recognize the usefulness of groups and affiliations and are more than willing to use them when necessary, and can recognize when the power of these brainless fools called the average person exceeds the power of our individual bodies (people like myself comprise less than 0.1% of the population - powerful as our intellect may be, we cannot ignore the tide of social action).

Your actions are collectively going to lead to instability and self-destruction. At which point, you don't need ideals that cannot be achieved, you need a plan of action and execution thereof. Your desire to see a third party or a change of parties is commendable - but unrealistic and irrelevant. The Tea Party holds power within the Republicans - an already conservative-heavy party. The Tea Party should be used to apply pressure on the internal politics within the Republicans to produce more small-government conservative candidates for election by the people at large, and pressure the existing Republican offices to push harder on small-government reforms.

A third party is simply not realistic. What's the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian? Or a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist? It'd be great if all of them held relatively equal power. They don't. And likely never will. You can either recognize that fact and plan around it, or you can sit there in denial. None of them hold enough power to be able to address the current problems in our system within a practical amount of time.

Once we've resolved the current issues and have a balanced budget - sure, by all means - start trying to push third parties into power. If you can make it work - it will lead to a far more stable system.

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

The election was rigged.

We dont want him back here in NV.

please,no?

You guys shouldn't have ran a nutty tart...

GOP has a candidate problem

DEMS have a message problem

Its obvious the government needs to start cutting spending and like it or not the Republicans are the only ones so far that is trying to do that. The Democrats just keep saying no to every proposol brought to them.

When the health care reform was heating up Obama kept saying if the Republicans have something better to bring to the table then he and the other dems would take a serious look at it. If they don't then the one he had come up with is the one he would sign into law.

Well, the shoe is on the other foot, its time for the Dems to bring something better to the table or take a back seat, as Obama would say.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

So Bachmann can just go peddle her wares to the cousin #ing mountain folk who would be about the only ones I can imagine would buy into the two party fallacy at this point.



Edi to add an apology in advance for any cousin #ers out there whom I may offend by implying they only live on mountains.

edit on 7-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Excuse me? I live amongst "mountain folk" (although they consider me an outsider) and they are much smarter than you give them credit for. They (except for the fundies, who can be found anywhere in the country) are generally suspicious of all politicians and justifiably so.

Don't mean to sidetrack the conversation, but I had to add those two cents.