Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 10, 2016, 07:07:23 AM
-
3rd place is the new winner. =)
-
3rd place is the new winner. =)
Curse you for beating me to the joke!
Honestly, I had hoped Cruz might take second, but it wasn't Kasich I thought he'd be battling with. That was surprising. (And here's hoping Chris Christie beats Kasich in South Carolina!)
-
I thought it would go down as Trump, Kasich, Christie and Cruz/Rubio tied for 4th, then Bush, then the rest as 1-2%.
Yankee Republicans are different than Midwestern Republicans.
Don't worry, we will be voting against someone come November.
-
Don't worry, we will be voting against someone come November.
That is the sort of gloom I like to hear from a good midwesterner.
"The ducks aren't ever going to line up. The ducks are trying to kill you."
----John Derbyshire
-
Any nominee that wants to escalate our military involvement in the middle east will not get my vote.
Looks like I'll not be voting this time around.
-
I figured Trump would win New Hampshire, but I thought Rubio would do better. I did hear commentary that Kasich had his best debate to date in the last one.
I guess we will see where South Caroline lands. Then Super Tuesday is right around the corner.
So is New Hampshire all or nothing on the delegates or do the candidates get delegates based on votes?
-
http://fee.org/articles/two-flavors-of-tyranny/
Some interseting thoughts on Trump and Sanders
Sanders and Trump differ on particulars, though where exactly is not quite obvious. Yes, Trump is against gun control, and Sanders extols it. Sanders wants to pillage the rich, and Trump doesn’t want to be pillaged. Sanders makes a big deal about global warming, and Trump doesn’t seem to take it seriously.
But those are the tweaks and idiosyncrasies in an overarching system on which they both agree: the nation state as the central organizing unit of life itself. They have different priorities on who it should serve and where the state should expand most.
But they agree on the need to protect and enlarge state power. Neither accepts any principled limits on what the state may rightfully do to the individual. Even on big issues where one might think they disagree — healthcare, immigration, and control of lands by the federal government — their positions are largely indistinguishable.
The new form of socialists were supported by the young generation, “out of that contempt for profit-making fostered by socialist teaching.” These people “spurned independent positions which involved risk, and flocked in ever-increasing numbers into salaried positions which promised security.” They were demanding a place yielding them income and power to which their training entitled them but which seemed perpetually out of reach.
Though he was talking about 1930s Europe, it seems like a good description of Sanders supporters, who overwhelmingly come from the youngest voters. Betrayed by the educational system, stuck with a bleak job outlook, burdened with debt, trapped in a broken healthcare market, feeling like the system is rigged against them, they have turned to the politician who promises heaven on earth through the pillaging of the wealthy elites.
Then you have the fascist and national socialist right, with its own forms of scapegoating and its own class appeal. This approach says: your troubles are due to the outsiders, the immigrants, the media elite, the Muslims, the intellectuals and their political correctness.
The appeal, then as now, is a new form of identity politics based on nation and race. To them, the idea of equality is a mere cover for a power grab, a subversive trick to further the interests of the elites and nefarious “others.”
-
Any nominee that wants to escalate our military involvement in the middle east will not get my vote.
Looks like I'll not be voting this time around.
You should definitely vote, even if it's for someone not on the ballot. Seeing even minuscule numbers for a "John Doe" that espouses specific political ideas is better than just being one of the nameless non-voters. It at least records and categorizes your dissatisfaction. If you don't vote, you just get lumped in with the non-voter numbers, which could be taken by either side to say, "Republicans stayed home", or "Democrats stayed home". You can get lumped in with values completely opposed to yours.
Even just 100 write-ins for John Doe at least clarifies and quantifies your dissatisfaction.
-
Yea, write in seems like the best option
-
http://fee.org/articles/two-flavors-of-tyranny/
Some interseting thoughts on Trump and Sanders
Trying to figure out how those are in any way new & insightful WRT American politics since about 1900 or so. Oh, I agree (for the most part)--but that could apply to T Roosevelt, Wilson (not Hording or Calvin Coolidge, the best POTUS in the 20th Century), Hoover, F Roosevelt, and so on.
-
Trying to figure out how those are in any way new & insightful WRT American politics since about 1900 or so. Oh, I agree (for the most part)--but that could apply to T Roosevelt, Wilson (not Hording or Calvin Coolidge, the best POTUS in the 20th Century), Hoover, F Roosevelt, and so on.
I know you are a supporter of Trump.
The truth is he is just as big a statist as Sanders.
They both see government as the solution, in their minds the right guy just hasn't instituted the right program(s).
Trump is a nationalist and seems to love the old America, that's great. He's still a big government type of guy. He's not going to dismantle our crony capitalist nascent fascist state. If anything under Trump it will get an injection of steroids and growth hormones. He will embrace the Obama doctrine of ruling by executive order. Everything I've learned about Trump points to every move the man makes is about getting HIM a better deal. I'm not confident my interests intersect enough with his enough to make it worth the risk of having him at the helm. His view of the utility of the state is not unlike Sanders, they have different goals but both crave to wield the coercive power of the state.
Sanders is just an old fashioned socialist. His popularity stems from the thorough brainwashing that the public education system has done on the population.
Neither one of them are champions of individual liberty and both look at the laws protecting liberty as obstacles in their path.
-
So is New Hampshire all or nothing on the delegates or do the candidates get delegates based on votes?
As I understand it, all of the early primaries/caucuses must allocate proportionally. They aren't allowed to be all or nothing until later in the year.
-
I know you are a supporter of Trump.
The truth is he is just as big a statist as Sanders.
They both see government as the solution, in their minds the right guy just hasn't instituted the right program(s).
Trump is a nationalist and seems to love the old America, that's great. He's still a big government type of guy. He's not going to dismantle our crony capitalist nascent fascist state. If anything under Trump it will get an injection of steroids and growth hormones. He will embrace the Obama doctrine of ruling by executive order. Everything I've learned about Trump points to every move the man makes is about getting HIM a better deal. I'm not confident my interests intersect enough with his enough to make it worth the risk of having him at the helm. His view of the utility of the state is not unlike Sanders, they have different goals but both crave to wield the coercive power of the state.
Sanders is just an old fashioned socialist. His popularity stems from the thorough brainwashing that the public education system has done on the population.
Neither one of them are champions of individual liberty and both look at the laws protecting liberty as obstacles in their path.
My impression is Trump would seek to make the bureaucracy efficient before ever considering removing it. Mostly that is judging by his response about Obamacare a while back.
-
My impression is Trump would seek to make the bureaucracy efficient before ever considering removing it. Mostly that is judging by his response about Obamacare a while back.
The old "the system isn't a failure we just haven't had the right guys in charge" fallacy.
-
I know you are a supporter of Trump.
The truth is he is just as big a statist as Sanders.
They both see government as the solution, in their minds the right guy just hasn't instituted the right program(s).
Trump is a nationalist and seems to love the old America, that's great. He's still a big government type of guy. He's not going to dismantle our crony capitalist nascent fascist state. If anything under Trump it will get an injection of steroids and growth hormones. He will embrace the Obama doctrine of ruling by executive order. Everything I've learned about Trump points to every move the man makes is about getting HIM a better deal. I'm not confident my interests intersect enough with his enough to make it worth the risk of having him at the helm. His view of the utility of the state is not unlike Sanders, they have different goals but both crave to wield the coercive power of the state.
Sanders is just an old fashioned socialist. His popularity stems from the thorough brainwashing that the public education system has done on the population.
Neither one of them are champions of individual liberty and both look at the laws protecting liberty as obstacles in their path.
Meh, you are seeing what you want to see. Like the global warmists and 'deniers.' In truth, there is not enough hard data to make a solid determination on Trump and what data there is has been tainted by one side or the other.
To call Trump as big a statist as Bernie Sanders, OTOH, disregards the hard data we do have. Bernie has been red since the cradle and active in red politics since college. Even his sanitized bio shows him as nothing more than a red activist and then a red policritter with zero time in the private sector. There is none of this sort of mess in Trump's background, that's a fact.
Trump seems to be a pragmatic(1) businessman in an environment where political connection and influence is as important as the purely economic/business bits of a deal/proposition. So, he comes off as chummy with NYS and NYC policritters because that is the water in which he swims. Were he to have been born in Texas or someplace less corrupt, he might have turned into a Ross Perot or T Boone Pickens-like figure. Or maybe he would be as chummy with Texas policritters. Trump does not seem a crony capitalist or corporatist, though. He is a do-er, not a hanger-on.
Trump is surely no doctrinaire an-cap liberutopitairan. Heck, I do not think Trump gives a fraction of a damn about ideology. He does what he needs to on the way to his objectives. If that means big, fat checks to NYC & DC politicos, so be it.
In my eyes, Trump's administration would be no worse than any other likely candidate and better than most. Dems are lost to Western Civ and decency. The GOP is not much better. They may talk liberty & small gov't, but their actions show us that is all lies.
OTOH, Trump has already done a great deal of good:
1. Moved the conversation on immigration in a nationalist direction.
2. Discredited much of the MSM, to include Fox.
3. Discredited the GOPe.
4. Turned ÃJeb! into chum.
5. Displayed open contempt for PC and the like.
6. In general, push a nationalistic message.
7. Slapped the Clintons silly.
I doubt Trump will deliver in full on any of his promises. Delivering partly on them would be an improvement.
As for running with BHO's precedents on the use of executive power, that horse is out of the barn. The only question is do more decent/patriotic folk unilaterally disarm and not use them to push a nationalist agenda or not? Becasue hte Dems will use them when in office. In truth, the COTUS and the rule of law is dead in this polity. Might makes right these days.
In the end, perhaps the best we can hope for in a Trump administration is a gutting of the GOPe and a massive disruption of the two-party system. The GOP is looking awfully Whiggish in hte face and may need a permanent vacation. Perhaps construct a new Jacksonian Party with socons and working class folks making up the bulk and willing to --literally--fight it out with the Left.
(1) Not necessarily a compliment.
-
Well I do agree a Trump presidency would be "better" than a Sanders presidency.
-
In truth, there is not enough hard data to make a solid determination on Trump and what data there is has been tainted by one side or the other.
I can agree with that statement. That is why he is not my favorite in the Primary. I can probably support him in the main election if he wins the primary. He is better than Jeb Bush (or McCain or Romney).
-
In the end, perhaps the best we can hope for in a Trump administration is a gutting of the GOPe and a massive disruption of the two-party system. The GOP is looking awfully Whiggish in hte face and may need a permanent vacation. Perhaps construct a new Jacksonian Party with socons and working class folks making up the bulk and willing to --literally--fight it out with the Left.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately.
I'm told over and over that "socons" ought to just shut up so "we" (Republicans) can win.
However, from what I've seen, we aren't getting social conservatism from our elected officials nor are we getting fiscal conservatism.
I do know there are a lot of "democrats" who aren't on board with the liberal social agenda, but hate Republicans because they aren't "for the little guy".
Maybe it's time for "socons" to stop supporting a losing agenda like "fiscal conservatism" and work with people who are truly concerned about the direction our country is headed.
-
Maybe it's time for "socons" to stop supporting a losing agenda like "fiscal conservatism" and work with people who are truly concerned about the direction our country is headed.
If we don't get our fiscal house in order, there will be an economic crisis and unrest in this country that will make the Bolshevik Revolution look like a sorority house pillow fight. That is the direction our country is headed in, and the destination is in sight. It will make disagreements about gay marriage, gender identity and all the other SJW causes shrink to insignificance. Stated differently, the socons are concerned about the monkeys flinging poo, when they should figure out how to keep the elephants from stampeding. The socons will have to make common cause with libertarian or an-caps, or they will be subsumed in the coming Reckoning.
And I AM a socially right-leaning libertarian.
-
I'm not sure how Trump is any worse than McCain or Romney when it comes to being a conservative? Probably better in some ways.
I'd prefer Cruz, now that Rand is done; but I think it would be foolish to not vote for Trump over Clinton or Sanders if that ends up being the choice.
-
Well I do agree a Trump presidency would be "better" than a Sanders presidency.
Getting kicked in the dick repeatedly IS better than getting shot in the dick repeatedly
-
If we don't get our fiscal house in order, there will be an economic crisis and unrest in this country that will make the Bolshevik Revolution look like a sorority house pillow fight. That is the direction our country is headed in, and the destination is in sight. It will make disagreements about gay marriage, gender identity and all the other SJW causes shrink to insignificance. Stated differently, the socons are concerned about the monkeys flinging poo, when they should figure out how to keep the elephants from stampeding. The socons will have to make common cause with libertarian or an-caps, or they will be subsumed in the coming Reckoning.
And I AM a socially right-leaning libertarian.
I think you've got it backwards.
We're currently spending the money of my children and grandchildren because our politicians have no morals and are only concerned about the present.
Without correcting our moral failings, we will not correct the fiscal issues. Those are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the country has grown more and more short-sighted and selfish. ME ME ME!! Screw those unborn citizens. If they didn't want us to steal from them, they should have voted!
-
I think you've got it backwards.
We're currently spending the money of my children and grandchildren because our politicians have no morals and are only concerned about the present.
Without correcting our moral failings, we will not correct the fiscal issues. Those are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the country has grown more and more short-sighted and selfish. ME ME ME!! Screw those unborn citizens. If they didn't want us to steal from them, they should have voted!
Pretty much right. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative are two mutually exclusive ideas. Regardless of how libertarians want to frame their argument, someone ultimately has to pay for others' preventable mistakes.
-
I think you've got it backwards.
We're currently spending the money of my children and grandchildren because our politicians have no morals and are only concerned about the present.
Without correcting our moral failings, we will not correct the fiscal issues. Those are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the country has grown more and more short-sighted and selfish. ME ME ME!! Screw those unborn citizens. If they didn't want us to steal from them, they should have voted!
We have a chicken / predecessor disagreement. I assert that it is possible for someone to want fiscal sanity, and be pro-... Fill in whatever you hate. If you can't make common cause with this, call it libertarian person, then both the socon and the libertarian will wind up in the same squalid predicament, with neither economic freedom nor a morally upright government. A more libertarian government may not halt the spread of all that icky pro-gay crap, but they also won't jail or fine the baker who refuses to serve a gay wedding cake. They may not obstruct the building of a mosque in your community, but they won't jail you for putting a nativity scene in view of a public street.
Is having to promote your cultural norms without .gov enforcement worth accepting a smothering nanny-state that is both antithetical to your beliefs AND hellbent on monetary, fiscal, and economic suicide?
-
Pretty much right. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative are two mutually exclusive ideas. Regardless of how libertarians want to frame their argument, someone ultimately has to pay for others' preventable mistakes.
I can't believe we're rehashing the conservative vs libertarian divide. Right wingers want to equate "minding your own business" with "crushing all moral rectitude". It ain't so.
-
Maybe it's time for "socons" to stop supporting a losing agenda like "fiscal conservatism" and work with people who are truly concerned about the direction our country is headed.
That tonic was as harsh going down as it was true.
When is the last time we saw this kind of turnout for the "March for More Cap Gains Tax Cuts"
https://www.google.com/search?q=2015+march+for+life&num=50&safe=active&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkl9im2-3KAhUEmIMKHSPqAuwQsAQILw&biw=957&bih=635&dpr=1.25
Getting kicked in the dick repeatedly IS better than getting shot in the dick repeatedly
Ayup.
Without correcting our moral failings, we will not correct the fiscal issues. Those are a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is the country has grown more and more short-sighted and selfish.
Pretty much.
Biology > Culture > Politics > (Things policritters do)
We have a chicken / predecessor disagreement. I assert that it is possible for someone to want fiscal sanity, and be pro-... Fill in whatever you hate. If you can't make common cause with this, call it libertarian person, then both the socon and the libertarian will wind up in the same squalid predicament, with neither economic freedom nor a morally upright government. A more libertarian government may not halt the spread of all that icky pro-gay crap, but they also won't jail or fine the baker who refuses to serve a gay wedding cake. They may not obstruct the building of a mosque in your community, but they won't jail you for putting a nativity scene in view of a public street.
Is having to promote your cultural norms without .gov enforcement worth accepting a smothering nanny-state that is both antithetical to your beliefs AND hellbent on monetary, fiscal, and economic suicide?
1. Again: Biology > Culture > Politics > (Things policritters do). Not chicken/egg conundrum.
2. Common cause between socons and libertarians was due to the existential threat of communism during the Cold War. Not interested in another one of those, thanks.
3. Put simply, there are a heap more votes to be had from working class whites currently languishing in the Dem party than there will ever be in the libertarian wing of...anything.
4. Socon policritters have more fiscally conservative records than solib/fiscon policritters in any case.
5. Libertarians were fine with using the gov't to get their ends and did not give a hoot about religious liberty as long as they got their pseudomarriage. Not seeing where socons owe libertarians the time of day. Actions have consequences. From my perspective, libertarians screwed the pooch on on the fiscal side of the house by allying with the cultural marxists and breaking the socon/libertarian compact.
-
...
5. Libertarians were fine with using the gov't to get their ends and did not give a hoot about religious liberty as long as they got their pseudomarriage. Not seeing where socons owe libertarians the time of day. Actions have consequences. From my perspective, libertarians screwed the pooch on on the fiscal side of the house by allying with the cultural marxists and breaking the socon/libertarian compact.
While there has been some movement on the issue libertarians are by and large open borders advocates also. Free movement of people and capital across the borders.
I have found their arguments to be sound in theory but a total disaster wherever implemented.
We are not the world, we are the United States of America
-
Rooster, this is an honest, as opposed to "leading" or "rhetorical", question. Do you really see no difference between "mind your own business" and "Cultural Marxism"?
-
Rooster, this is an honest, as opposed to "leading" or "rhetorical", question. Do you really see no difference between "mind your own business" and "Cultural Marxism"?
Irrelevant regarding libertarinaism.
The libertarians have not been pushing "mind your own business" for quite some time, now. They are not a "mind your own business" movement anymore.
-
We have a chicken / predecessor disagreement. I assert that it is possible for someone to want fiscal sanity, and be pro-... Fill in whatever you hate. If you can't make common cause with this, call it libertarian person, then both the socon and the libertarian will wind up in the same squalid predicament, with neither economic freedom nor a morally upright government. A more libertarian government may not halt the spread of all that icky pro-gay crap, but they also won't jail or fine the baker who refuses to serve a gay wedding cake. They may not obstruct the building of a mosque in your community, but they won't jail you for putting a nativity scene in view of a public street.
Is having to promote your cultural norms without .gov enforcement worth accepting a smothering nanny-state that is both antithetical to your beliefs AND hellbent on monetary, fiscal, and economic suicide?
I've never suggested it is impossible to want fiscal conservatism while wanting licentiousness. I'm arguing it's been clear that allying with people like that has not produced fiscal conservatism.
Addtionally, I'm more interested in preventing the government from promoting OTHER social norms and stopping it from discouraging moral behaviour.
Further, so far, this is not a fully serious idea. I'm just sick of getting told that my erstwhile allies are not only ashamed of me but are certain they'd be better off without being allied with me.
This tells me I ought to be looking for other allies since they are signalling they are not trustworthy.
Your post suggests a naivety as well. We have the pro-gay enforcement arm of the state that extends to schooling and, as you noted, bakeries, venues, etc... Just how, exactly, am I to expect the libertarians who gleefully support those outcomes as "well, that's what happens when you oppose gay marriage!" will suddenly become interested in actual liberty?
Libertarians were MORE than happy to ally with the leftists who supported oppressing dissenters in order to get their preferred outcome of government enforced recognition of gay unions.
This is just like when the problems of open borders are noted (e.g. a welfare state with open borders CANNOT survive), libertarians ignore them and push ahead with the open borders arguments. Clearly the "fiscal conservatism" isn't all that big of a concern here, either.
-
I can't believe we're rehashing the conservative vs libertarian divide. Right wingers want to equate "minding your own business" with "crushing all moral rectitude". It ain't so.
I'm all about 'doing my own thing' and others 'doing their own thing', but inevitably people expect payout for their bad choices.
-
I'm all about 'doing my own thing' and others 'doing their own thing', but inevitably people expect payout for their bad choices.
That's the thing with the Libertarians. They really DO have a "Well, too bad. You're going to die in the gutter then."-plank in the party platform. Of course, in reality it's "Department XYZ is eliminated." And when you're actually told to FOAD and figure it out for yourself, a heartening number of human beings actually do just that instead of dying in the gutter...
Can't blame them for leading with their best stuff, pot, gayz0r marriage, RKBA/gunz etc. first though, can you? =D
If Micro were still here, he'd scold me for it, but I do agree you'll never see a Libertarian revolution in America. People are far too "Whud about muh ROADS?" on both the left and right to ever really go for it IMO. If we're lucky, Libertarians and Cons will just be able to "go Galt" by sidestepping the state through tech, Bitcoin, 3D printing or whatever etc. But I'm consistently told that being a crypto-libertarian is futile. (shrug)
-
That's the thing with the Libertarians. They really DO have a "Well, too bad. You're going to die in the gutter then."-plank in the party platform. Of course, in reality it's "Department XYZ is eliminated." And when you're actually told to FOAD and figure it out for yourself, a heartening number of human beings actually do just that instead of dying in the gutter...
If they led with that and were able to make good on such promises, I'd back them 100%. As it is, .gov infantilizes grown ass adults to the point that enough of them are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions that it threatens to bankrupt our country.
The fatal flaw in the libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principal. They are far less likely line up and shoot the oxygen thieves who would rob them at gunpoint than be lined up and shot themselves.
-
Irrelevant regarding libertarinaism.
The libertarians have not been pushing "mind your own business" for quite some time, now. They are not a "mind your own business" movement anymore.
I guess that, just like the TEA party movement got hijacked by SoCons, the small "l" libertarian crowd has to go find someplace else to sit in the lunchroom, since the SJW's have swamped our table.
Bye, Felicia.
-
Cruz wins New Hampster
Vermin Supreme has a solid fourth place showing.
-
I guess Trump is like Obamacare.
Obamacare had to be passed to find out what was in it and now we have to elect Donald to find out how he will govern.
Immigration and trade barriers. Even if he doesn't sell us out on those issues how is he going to be on all the others?
Seems appropriate that we're being asked to spin the wheel and play a game of chance and elect a casino owner.
-
I guess Trump is like Obamacare.
Obamacare had to be passed to find out what was in it and now we have to elect Donald to find out how he will govern.
Immigration and trade barriers. Even if he doesn't sell us out on those issues how is he going to be on all the others?
Seems appropriate that we're being asked to spin the wheel and play a game of chance and elect a casino owner.
You just won the internet.
The whole, dang internet.
I guess that, just like the TEA party movement got hijacked by SoCons,
I suspect the Tea Party was always composed largely of so-cons.
-
I guess that, just like the TEA party movement got hijacked by SoCons, the small "l" libertarian crowd has to go find someplace else to sit in the lunchroom, since the SJW's have swamped our table.
Bye, Felicia.
and when small 'l' libertarians vote Libertarian this general election, then it'll be "WAAAAH, HILLARY WON BECAUSE OF THOSE DAMNED LIBERTARIANS"
-
As I understand it, all of the early primaries/caucuses must allocate proportionally. They aren't allowed to be all or nothing until later in the year.
Well, I guess there's proportionally, and then there's "proportionally."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
-
Well, I guess there's proportionally, and then there's "proportionally."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates
And people think have a democracy.
-
My impression is Trump would seek to make the bureaucracy efficient before ever considering removing it. Mostly that is judging by his response about Obamacare a while back.
Trump is still a national Healthcare shill
This week anyway
Curse you for beating me to the joke!
Honestly, I had hoped Cruz might take second, but it wasn't Kasich I thought he'd be battling with. That was surprising. (And here's hoping Chris Christie beats Kasich in South Carolina!)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Trump is still a national Healthcare shill
This week anyway
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Ran across this quote regarding Trump. I think it speaks to his appeal.
If his only purpose today is to be the human wrecking ball that destroys the useless GOP and Trotskyite political correctness both, he will be remembered by history as a great man.
-
I heard Trump credited with being the main reason Jeb Bush has little or no support. For that alone I appreciate him.
-
I agree with the last two posts. I very much appreciate what Trump has done in those respects. Ideally, he would accomplish all of that, and Cruz would go on to win the nomination and the general. And make Trump ambassador to Mexico. =)
-
You just won the internet.
The whole, dang internet.
I suspect the Tea Party was always composed largely of so-cons.
I am a so-con, by personal inclination. And I was thrilled, literally, by the rapid rise of the TEA party. It was kinda libertarian, without the wookie suits. The entire reason for its formation was to reign in spending and taxes. Period flippin' dot. No commentary was offered on the SJW causes of the day. But noooooooo, we get a bunch of pisswits, who, having seen the parade marching just haaaaad to race out in front of it to see if they could viewed as the leaders. My hand to God, I don't see how any left wing statist cabal could have castrated the movement any better than the Palin, Santorum et al did.
-
I am a so-con, by personal inclination. And I was thrilled, literally, by the rapid rise of the TEA party. It was kinda libertarian, without the wookie suits. The entire reason for its formation was to reign in spending and taxes. Period flippin' dot. No commentary was offered on the SJW causes of the day. But noooooooo, we get a bunch of pisswits, who, having seen the parade marching just haaaaad to race out in front of it to see if they could viewed as the leaders. My hand to God, I don't see how any left wing statist cabal could have castrated the movement any better than the Palin, Santorum et al did.
Do you have any more information on how that all occurred? There must be a lot of internet ink spilled on that subject. I suppose I should look into it. All I remember about the rise and decline of the Tea Party was that we got a bunch of Republicans elected to the House in 2010, and then the Occupiers began to get a lot of press, and the Tea Party was no longer such a big story. Or maybe people were just done protesting, thinking they had accomplished the goal by "winning" the House.
Another glaring lacuna in my fund of knowledge, that I ought to fill.
-
Do you have any more information on how that all occurred? There must be a lot of internet ink spilled on that subject. I suppose I should look into it. All I remember about the rise and decline of the Tea Party was that we got a bunch of Republicans elected to the House in 2010, and then the Occupiers began to get a lot of press, and the Tea Party was no longer such a big story. Or maybe people were just done protesting, thinking they had accomplished the goal by "winning" the House.
Another glaring lacuna in my fund of knowledge, that I ought to fill.
It's power was also it's weakness.
The Tea Party was so genuinely grassroots, it had no leadership or any mechanism to say who or what was "Tea Party" and who and what was not. There was no central comitte or leader to declare something genuine Tea Party or a pretender.
All sorts of GOPe, big-gov "We just spend 5% less than Democrats"-type socons were able to try and co-opt it with any sort of "outsider" status in any election, or position of punditry where their ability to pose as such wasn't completely laughable. And worse, the Left was able to also do the same, and define whatever boogeyman they wanted to as being "Tea Party" as well.
And it's to the point that the entire concept of what was "Tea Party" got so muddied and diluted at the same time, it kind of fell apart.
I even know a lot of more liberty-cons, moderate-cons and others who turn up their nose at "Tea Party" now because both the confusion, and the demonization have penetrated to the point they believe it's Lyndon LaRouche, Family Research Council, and John Bircher stuff now.
Hell, Rubio WAS one of the biggest Tea Party movement candidates, where he challenged Christ, and ousted him. Now a bunch of the electorate views him like he's almost as GOPe as Jeb!
Further, I think you're right. The grassroots Tea Party kind of faded out at the same time after '12, once Obama won his second term and the GOP primary process failed to bend to Tea Party desires and chose Romney. And yeah, as the GOP got control of Congress, there just wasn't that much to fight over anymore until now. And some of that angst, what was left has been sucked up by Trump.
That's at least my gut-level impressions of how it devolved.
-
Tea party got coopted by the establishment. Though socons were in it from the getgo it was not a socon focused critter. Focus was fiscal responsibility. Tea party had outsized influence in 2010 and 2014 races but could not overcome romneys lack of appeal to the base in 2012. Tea party even endorsed the senator scott brown from mass who was in no way a socon.
-
Fistful, your question to me was answered better by others than I could. I think the only real blow thrown at it from the left was the scurrilous, possibly slanderous remark made by some black congressman who claimed to have been spit on by some folks at a TEA party rally. No evidence was offered, and contemporaneous video of his march past them never revealed it.
Upon reflection, it seems a bit like the story line from Braveheart. Infighting, backstabbing and envy among the nominal allies did what the true adversary could never do.