Is tea party the end of our two-party system?

[mawilson 2,133]

If this is an 'all party' movement, why is it so closely identified with right wingers?

It's not. What makes you think it is?

When it gets down to it, the values championed by most of the tea party is platform of the Republican party.

The old Republican party, perhaps. As in actual conservative values, not the joke that the Republican party has become.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not. What makes you think it is?

The old Republican party, perhaps. As in actual conservative values, not the joke that the Republican party has become.

Sorry, you said all are welcome, by that you meant only conservatives who don't fit anywhere else?

You're actual words were:

The message is simple and crosses party lines, gender lines, religious lines and yes,

racial lines.

I don't believe it does that at all, not even a little bit.

I still can't work out why you, of all people would identify with people who are largely drawn from the 'eccentric' wing of the puritan church. Perhaps you can elaborate on that a little?

Edited September 17, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[slim 1,530]

I wanna know when the Tea Party became a party and shifted from grassroots efforts to stop govt. waste. To me, the moment they became a party signified their own suicide.

"We hate the establishment... but in order to take it on, we're going to be just like them."

[mawilson 2,133]

I still can't work out why you, of all people would identify with people who are largely drawn from the 'eccentric' wing of the puritan church. Perhaps you can elaborate on that a little?

I don't identify with those people.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't identify with those people.

Those people are the people that make up the Tea Party movement at least, those are the people who are the candidates that are standing on a platform based on those loose Tea Party aims that you are so taken by.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[slim 1,530]

loose Tea Party aims

Fiscal responsibility is a pretty simple concept.

[Peikko 1,575]

Fiscal responsibility is a pretty simple concept.

It is. The point is though that none of the candidates who are running on a Tea Party platform actually want to dismantle Federal Government, nor could they realistically. That being said, such aims are just meaningless words designed to elicit an emotional response from the voter. Being a member of the House or Senate is a job, and when I go for a job interview I can't get away with saying such airy fairy feel good nonsense, so why should they?

Edited September 17, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[^_^ 5,021]

Fiscal responsibility is a pretty simple concept.

Sure, but when you only remember what it means when a Democrat is President and not when your own cowboy from Texas is in the White House, it's no longer quite so simple as simply being a simple concept.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sure, but when you only remember what it means when a Democrat is President and not when your own cowboy from Texas is in the White House, it's no longer quite so simple as simply being a simple concept.

Although I am sure they will manage to scramble a ####### and bull answer as to why it is necessary now, when it wasn't necessary before - something to do with the deficit probably.

[^_^ 5,021]

It is. The point is though that none of the candidates who are running on a Tea Party platform actually want to dismantle Federal Government, nor could they realistically. That being said, such aims are just meaningless words designed to elicit an emotional response from the voter. Being a member of the House or Senate is a job, and when I go for a job interview I can't get away with saying such airy fairy feel good nonsense, so why should they?

You are interviewed by small groups of people who have ascended to their positions through a combination of hard work and schmoozing.

Senators and Congressmen and Presidents are "interviewed" mostly by people who's only qualification is the place of their birth.

Tea Party senators and congressman can't truly dismantle government, nor do they want to. They want to simply do away with parts of the government that do things they don't approve of - like provide a social safety net, promote social justice, etc.

[slim 1,530]

It is. The point is though that none of the candidates who are running on a Tea Party platform actually want to dismantle Federal Government, nor could they realistically. That being said, such aims are just meaningless words designed to elicit an emotional response from the voter. Being a member of the House or Senate is a job, and when I go for a job interview I can't get away with saying such airy fairy feel good nonsense, so why should they?

Why would they dismantle the federal government instead of trying to change it to be fiscally responsible?

Sure, but when you only remember what it means when a Democrat is President and not when your own cowboy from Texas is in the White House, it's no longer quite so simple as simply being a simple concept.

If you have ten dollars and you spend seven, you can't spend four more, can you?

[^_^ 5,021]

If you have ten dollars and you spend seven, you can't spend four more, can you?

Actually, you can, depending. Businesses do it all the time. That's why there was so much chatter about businesses not making payroll without access to short term lines of credit.

[mawilson 2,133]

Those people are the people that make up the Tea Party movement at least, those are the people who are the candidates that are standing on a platform based on those loose Tea Party aims that you are so taken by.

You keep saying that, but you've yet to explain why you believe it to be true.

Both Republicans and Democrats want to marginalize the Tea Party movement because

they see it as a threat to their existence. They are doing whatever they can to

infiltrate it or undermine it by calling it "astro turf", fringe, racist, etc.

Democrats have a hard time understanding that not all activist movements are based

on social issues. How can someone be against handouts - or healthcare for all?

Republicans, on the other hand, are afraid that the Tea Party will split the

conservative vote and hand Obama a second term. Yet, the movement has become so

popular that they are afraid to openly fight it. Instead, they are trying to endorse it and

bring tea party enthusiasm into the fold.

[Peikko 1,575]

You keep saying that, but you've yet to explain why you believe it to be true.

Both Republicans and Democrats want to marginalize the Tea Party movement because

they see it as a threat to their existence. They are doing whatever they can to

infiltrate it or undermine it by calling it "astro turf", fringe, racist, etc.

Democrats have a hard time understanding that not all activist movements are based

on social issues. How can someone be against handouts - or healthcare for all?

Republicans, on the other hand, are afraid that the Tea Party will split the

conservative vote and hand Obama a second term. Yet, the movement has become so

popular that they are afraid to openly fight it. Instead, they are trying to endorse it and

bring tea party enthusiasm into the fold.

I have no doubt that you are right about the established political parties having their own agenda for marginalizing the movement, and self interest must be a big part of it. However, that is not why I personally find it meaningless drivel.

[mawilson 2,133]

They want to simply do away with parts of the government that do things they don't approve of - like provide a social safety net, promote social justice, etc.

When the so-called "safety net" is teetering on the verge of fiscal insolvency, it's not

very "safe", now is it?

If nothing is done about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, they WILL go bankrupt, you do

understand that, don't you? And when they do, their collapse will hurt the very people

you're trying to help.