Thread: 'Tea party' clout: What was learned from Sen. Robert Bennett loss

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50
  1. #31  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    I'll stick my foot in my mouth for a bit. There is one guy, Texas congressman Ron Paul who I consider totally authentic in his intentions. I think that the republican party is just using the fears and anxieties of the Tea Party movement to secure a strong base, even if they don't intend to do anything for them, just like they did with the Religious Right not too long ago.

    HOWEVER, Ron Paul is one of the most Liberterian die-hard principled people you'll ever see in our government. He seems to genuinely be there for what he believes in, for what he thinks is right, and fights hard for his libertarian principles.

    I don't agree with him on many issues, but I strongly respect his integrity and honesty and I believe he is doing the right thing for the people who put him in office.

    His son now, Rand Paul (LMAO AT HIS NAME ABAHAHA) is also running for congress and thanks to the Tea Party seems to be in a comfortable lead against his competetor in the Republican primary.


    Now I don't know all too much about Rand Paul, other than he is a favorite of the Tea Party. If he is like his father, than he is SURELY the man for the Tea Party to elect, and he is one person that I will say is not simply trying to use Tea Party fears to push a Republican agenda, but rather is using the Republican label to push for Tea Party Principles.

    I don't agree with him and I wouldln't want to see him actually win the election, but if he is like his father then he is a man of principles, a man of integrity, and has his mind and heart in the right place: With his constituents and the values of libertarianism.

    I'd rather have an honest principled person who I disagree with going into congress than a pandering crook who I disagree with.
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I'd rather have an honest principled person who I disagree with going into congress than a pandering crook who I disagree with.
    What about a pandering crook you agree with?
     

  3. #33  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    What about a pandering crook you agree with?
    Depends on their ratio of crookedness-to-goodaction

    I'm not naive, everyone, including the Golden Boy Messiah himself Obama has fallen far short of all of the liberal expectations. Of course, we all knew this would happen. I've been appalled and upset about many of the actions Obama and the dems in congress have taken (even though I voted for them).

    Still, the Republicans are no different, and perhaps "crooks" is too strong a word because they do not work in a vaccuum and are in a sea of money and influence that's been there for a very, very long time.

    If the Democrats continue to support working-and-middle class interests, continue to push for some level of financial regulation, then I'll keep voting for them. However, the last 2 years has been a shitfest and I am disgusted at the level of inaction taking place there (although having the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY VOTE ALONG A SINGLE PARTY LINE EVERY TIME AN IMPORTANT MEASURE COMES UP DOESN'T HELP). So far Obama and the dems have done more the help the same big businesses and financial giants while only throwing table scraps to working Americans. However, the republicans are there to make sure none of the scraps even get down.


    If this goes on much further I will happily join the Labor Party. As of now, it seems that the Dems have at least some interest in working Americans (although big business, big finance, and the wealthy elite are giving almost just as much money to the Dems as they are to the Republicans).

    This seems to be the moment, we had a financial meltdown and there's economic insecurity all over. This is the moment to take action, it's when everything is uncertain that an action of Faith, and also an Political Action needs to be made. If in the next 2-6 years if the Democratic party does not assert itself as the party of the working-and-middle class (including SMALL business owners), then they'll totally lose my support. They are a disgrace, and this is their one chance to really make a difference. If they drop the ball, then fuck em.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 05-15-2010 at 07:13 PM.
     

  4. #34  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    What about a pandering crook you agree with?
    Obama and the Democratic Party welcomes crooks. Do I need to make a list?
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    If the Democrats continue to support working-and-middle class interests, continue to push for some level of financial regulation, then I'll keep voting for them.
    Do they? Has any high-profile US politician since Carter actually supported working- and middle-class interests, and not the interests of lobbyists, corporate entities, and various special interest groups? (note I am not saying Carter was effective or a particularly good Executive, I just don't think he was in anybody's pocket.) To find someone who supported working class interests and was effective at it, you'd have to go back a lot farther. :p

    This seems to be the moment, we had a financial meltdown and there's economic insecurity all over. This is the moment to take action, it's when everything is uncertain that an action of Faith, and also an Political Action needs to be made. If in the next 2-6 years if the Democratic party does not assert itself as the party of the working-and-middle class (including SMALL business owners), then they'll totally lose my support. They are a disgrace, and this is their one chance to really make a difference. If they drop the ball, then fuck em.
    I can save you the hassle. Unless the "working-and-middle class" can offer the same financial and political incentives as the industries du-jour, neither party will switch their allegiance.
    Last edited by m00; 05-15-2010 at 08:12 PM.
     

  6. #36  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Do they? Has any high-profile US politician since Carter actually supported working- and middle-class interests, and not the interests of lobbyists, corporate entities, and various special interest groups? (note I am not saying Carter was effective or a particularly good Executive, I just don't think he was in anybody's pocket.) To find someone who supported working class interests and was effective at it, you'd have to go back a lot farther. :p



    I can save you the hassle. Unless the "working-and-middle class" can offer the same financial and political incentives as the industries du-jour, neither party will switch their allegiance.

    You only need to go back as far as 1981-1989
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    You only need to go back as far as 1981-1989
    Not to diminish the good things Reagan did for the country, but I wouldn't exactly characterize his policies (especially economic policies) as favoring the working class. For example, the Savings and Loan crisis.
    Last edited by m00; 05-15-2010 at 09:02 PM.
     

  8. #38  
    Super Moderator Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Not to diminish the good things Reagan did for the country, but I wouldn't exactly characterize his policies as favoring the working class.

    They most certainly did. By ANY objective measurement.
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    They most certainly did. By ANY objective measurement.
    I challenge you to find any objective measurement of "favoring the working class." :p Heck, I don't think there's even an objection definition of "working class."

    I'm just having a completely subjective conversation here. :D
    Last edited by m00; 05-15-2010 at 10:03 PM.
     

  10. #40  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    I can save you the hassle. Unless the "working-and-middle class" can offer the same financial and political incentives as the industries du-jour, neither party will switch their allegiance.
    The working-and-middle class cannot compete at all in the financial incentives, but politically (they are still outmatched, however...) they can have strong influence IF AND ONLY IF they develop some level of class consciousness and stop pushing for the wealthy corporate interests (like the working class Tea Party is doing).

    If the working and middle class people realize their common interests, they can have INCREDIBLE political influence.

    The problem will be mainly from the really highly paid wage workers, such as managers and mid-level executives who aren't exactly wealthy, but who's interests do lie in the interests of the wealthy elite.

    Still, we don't need a communist revolution, we need a strong unified labor force to counter the total unilateral influence that the wealthy corporate elite has over BOTH political parties.,
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •