Tea Party politicians vote more on party lines compared to others

reply to post by sonnny1


Let me just add something about Paul Ryan, he won't add anything to the ticket for Romney. Tea Partiers are a solid vote behind Romney, they'll vote for him regardless so he doesn't need to secure that vote. What he needs to do is secure those conservative voters who have gone rogue, those Paul supporters. I really believe he'll either go for Rand Paul or a Libertarian leaning VP.... where he'll find one aside from Rand, I don't know.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It all depends though. I have Johnson now, but Southern Guardian is right on one thing. I don't need a President who signed NDAA, kept Gitmo Opened, is letting 20000 drones fly in American skies, and has his own personal "kill" list. That in mind, My vote is still up in the air........

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Fox News commentator Juan Williams argues that the Tea Party movement emerged from the "ashes" of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential primary campaign.[21] Others have argued that the Koch brothers were essential in fostering the movement.[22][23]

Tea Party movement


Lets not forget, how it all started......



Edit to add: Mind you, it wasn't the Koch Brothers who spearheaded the original parties I went to.....but i put it there, so no one can say, I didn't try to hide the fact, folks "thought" it went down that way..........

Originally posted by beezzer
Other than trying to define what I believe and how I chose to portray my belief,

This is a free country, you're more than welcome to believe what you wish. On the flip side, I don't have to buy it. The Tea Parties are an astroturf campaign, they have been since 2009, they formed because conservatives were outraged that Obama was elected. None of those tea party policians will be held accountable for supporting those policies because tea partiers are only concerned about two things, Obama and the Democrats.

That chart doesn't appear to bother you at all, I'm not surprised though.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by beezzer
Other than trying to define what I believe and how I chose to portray my belief,

This is a free country, you're more than welcome to believe what you wish. On the flip side, I don't have to buy it. The Tea Parties are an astroturf campaign, they have been since 2009, they formed because conservatives were outraged that Obama was elected. None of those tea party policians will be held accountable for supporting those policies because tea partiers are only concerned about two things, Obama and the Democrats.

That chart doesn't appear to bother you at all, I'm not surprised though.

Actually, my group started in 2008 after Bush signed TARP.

But believe what you wish. It's very nearlya free country still.

Originally posted by beezzer
Actually, my group started in 2008 after Bush signed TARP

The Tea Parties started under the presidential campaign of Ron Paul in 2007, the name was adopted by others sometime after. They only became the national movement they are today in April of 2009.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

It all depends though. I have Johnson now, but Southern Guardian is right on one thing. I don't need a President who signed NDAA, kept Gitmo Opened, is letting 20000 drones fly in American skies, and has his own personal "kill" list. That in mind, My vote is still up in the air........

Well gee why not just vote for O then, as that will be the effect of your vote for Johnson. Can you stomach 4 more years of O just to make a point?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by beezzer
Other than trying to define what I believe and how I chose to portray my belief,

This is a free country, you're more than welcome to believe what you wish. On the flip side, I don't have to buy it. The Tea Parties are an astroturf campaign, they have been since 2009, they formed because conservatives were outraged that Obama was elected. None of those tea party policians will be held accountable for supporting those policies because tea partiers are only concerned about two things, Obama and the Democrats.

That chart doesn't appear to bother you at all, I'm not surprised though.

This is just more of the Nancy Pelosi balogna buffet. She hated the Tea Party because they oppose her socialist agenda. You know it's true.

Originally posted by neo96
So what the hell does that prove?

Hr bills go to Senate where they aren't that many teapartiers still had Democratic Majorities and the Current potus who is a Democrat sign those bills in to law.

So who are the hypocrites?

Yep Teaparty but the only ones?

Not even close.

I like how a member that is considered a contributing member of the community routinely replies to thread topics and interjects his thoughts that always seem to in the end change the topic.

Quality poster indeed.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by beezzer
Actually, my group started in 2008 after Bush signed TARP

The Tea Parties started under the presidential campaign of Ron Paul in 2007, the name was adopted by others sometime after. They only became the national movement they are today in April of 2009.

Okay. My group started in 08. Dunno about anyone else.

(we didn't get the memo)

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by buster2010
Only two people had the guts to put Americans first and say nay to all of it. That is a bad sign for America.

And if you listen to the majority of Alex Jones worshipers, one of those two is automatically to be considered an untrustworthy jackass because he dared to endorse Mitt Romney after his dad dropped out of the race.

I'm a Tea Party supporter... But man I detest the small group which co-opted it and tried to turn it into some twisted cult of Ron Paul. The aid to Israel issue is a great example. In the early days of the Tea Party, the core consisted of men and women with Protestant backgrounds. Walk into a Southern Baptist, Methodist, or Assembly of God church and down talk Israel... See where that gets you. But as the Cult of Paul began to amass within the movement, suddenly it was assumed that "antizionism" was a core value.

And if you would spend a little time researching I see a group of people that spit on the constitution that they swore to uphold. The NDAA and patriot act both strip Americans of rights and aid to Israel is nothing but a waste of money. It is nothing short of treason to give money to a nation that spies on America has attacked America and murdered it's citizens. Not to mention they have active terrorist cells in America and a huge spy organization that interferes with our government process. Benny has said many times that they don't need Americas help so why does it hurt to let them stand on their own feet. As far as the churches go I could care less what delusional people think.

reply to post by neo96

Back to evil Israel.so really what country has more "influence" with the government? Israel? Mexico?

Care to show us where congress swore loyalty to Mexico like they did Israel?

Nearly 300 Congress members declare commitment to 'unbreakable' U.S.-Israel bond

Sources say Paul Ryan is Romney's VP pick.

No, I'm dead serious.... these are sources coming from major news outlets.

We'll wait for the "official" announcement, but seriously.

Tea Party politicians vote more on party lines compared to others

Isn't that to be expected?? The whole point of the Tea Party is deep fiscal responsibility and conservativism so naturally they aren't won't be voting for the usual 'tax and spend' democrats. They won't be voting for the more liberal spenders in the Republican party either.

I'm sure there are other sub-groups in DC and throughout the country that vote strictly on party lines as well. Subgroups .. like southern evangelicals, black voters, etc etc etc ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Tea Party politicians vote more on party lines compared to others

Isn't that to be expected?? The whole point of the Tea Party is deep fiscal responsibility and conservativism

I hardly see where the NDAA, The Patriot Act, and military aid to Israel ties in with fiscal conservatism. Tea partiers also insisted they were anti-establishment, that they were going to bring change to Washington, but they did no such thing.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I hardly see where the NDAA, The Patriot Act, and military aid to Israel ties in with fiscal conservatism.

You'd all call them 'one trick ponies' if all they did was concentrate on the fiscal aspects and weren't versed in the other areas of poltiics as well. If they just stuck to fiscal areas then they wouldn't be capable of the versitality needed for office. SOME gov't spending is needed of course ... but the Tea Party is concentrating on cutting wasteful spending.

Tea partiers also insisted they were anti-establishment, that they were going to bring change to Washington, but they did no such thing.

There aren't enough of them in office to push through major changes.

Side note .. IMHO - the Tea Party started out to be a really good thing and it got hijacked by the extreme religious right. It is now swinging back to being what it started out to be.

Same kind of thing happened with the Occupy Wall Street movement. It started out to be a really good thing but it got hijacked by the extreme socialist left. Time will tell to see if it will swing back to being what it started out to be.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
but the Tea Party is concentrating on cutting wasteful spending.

All Republicans claim that they are at core fiscal conservatives, all of them run on this idea of fighting wasteful spending. Republican candidates have been doing it for decades. Tea Party endorsed politicians are certainly not the first, and they certainly are not different in their voting habits from establishment Republicans.

There aren't enough of them in office to push through major changes.

Yep, but the lot of them that are in office at this moment are not pushing for these changes themselves. Voting for establishment bills like the NDAA and the patriot act is not an excuse for the absence of more tea party republicans. That's like saying the only reason many Democrats voted for the Patriot act was because they didn't make the majority of the house. This argument doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
All Republicans claim that they are at core fiscal conservatives,

And obviously all republicans aren't fiscal conservatives. Bush43 comes to mind ...
Politicians LIE to get in office. Democrat or republican. It's what they do.

. This argument doesn't make sense.

Sorry but from what I see it's just the way it is ... there aren't enough of them in office to make a fiscal change and they can't ignore the other business of the country. Kind of like when Obama wants to push something through but there aren't enough dems on The Hill to help him get what he wants.

If it were me in office .. I'd be trying to go 'Ron Paul' on them ... cut all foreign 'aid' etc etc ...