# Shattering the Myth that the Tea Party is Dead



## longknife (Nov 17, 2012)

by Leslie Eastman

As an amateur Egyptologist who occasionally writes about Egypt at the Temple of Mut, my specialty is mummies. So, I know dead things and can say with certainty: The Tea Party is NOT dead.

I have been a Tea Party activist since the first nationwide series of events were organized in February, 2009. I assisted in the promotion of San Diegos event, and helped found the SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition. I am also a member of the groups punditry team, the SLOBs (San Diego Local Oder of Bloggers). So, I also know a thing or two about Tea Parties.

In the wake of this Novembers extremely disappointing election results, liberal sites are ablaze in a delusional mixture of glee and schadenfreude that celebrates the demise of conservative activism.

On the other hand, supposedly conservative pundit/school marm Peggy Noonan derides the Tea Party for rage.  Furthermore, one of the movements heroes, Rand Paul, is now joining the chorus of establishment Republicans in calling for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Keep up your hopes Lefties! But, they ain't going away! Read more @ » Shattering the Myth that the Tea Party is Dead - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion


----------



## GlobeOtter (Nov 18, 2012)

I think the tea party will stay around and have an effect but it will not be part of the "republican" party. I think the business end of the party will fight hard to reject it due to what they see as problems with the social platform and winning elections.

Now will the tea party replace the republicans and they go out the way of the Whigs or will the tea party end up fighting the republicans for primaries and be a thorn in their side.

Either way it should be interesting in the 2014 elections


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2012)

Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.

So THANK YOU Tea-Partyests for your part helping to put Obama into the Oval Office for another four years.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 18, 2012)

editec said:


> Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.
> 
> So THANK YOU Tea-Partyests for your part helping to put Obama into the Oval Office for another four years.


Hmmm....So it was the TEA Partiers that compelled 8 million voters to stay home this time around, rather than go vote for Obiedoodle.

Well, if you want to run with that one, who am I to stop you?


----------



## Votto (Nov 18, 2012)

editec said:


> Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.
> 
> So THANK YOU Tea-Partyests for your part helping to put Obama into the Oval Office for another four years.



The Tea Party was successfully demonized after 2010.  This was vital due to the response to the Tea Party in the 2010 elections.  

How did they do it?  The GOP sent retards to Washington that caved to the debt ceiling, and the US downgrade was subsequently blamed on the Tea Party.  All of that ugliness did nothing but make Americans mad, especially since the GOP backed down.

Make no mistake, the GOP is a Big Government party and  as such diesdains the Tea Party.  This does not stop them from trying to gain their support through demagoguery, however.

All the Tea Party wants is fiscal sanity, yet they are referred to as extermists as those in Washington who run trillion dollar deficits are referred to as the sane ones.  This is what boggles my mind.  Just know the power arrayed against you in the Tea Party, for they are impressive.  You have no major party to work through and the media is against you.


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2012)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.
> ...


 
Clearly reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, Odd.



> ...the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize LIBERALS to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.


 
YOu must be arguing with an imaginary fellow right winger that exists in your head,  because the complaint you've just objected to is something THEY are saying.


----------



## Truthmatters (Nov 18, 2012)

longknife said:


> by Leslie Eastman
> 
> As an amateur Egyptologist who occasionally writes about Egypt at the Temple of Mut, my specialty is mummies. So, I know dead things and can say with certainty: The Tea Party is NOT dead.
> 
> ...



hey if they change all their ideas then they will survive.


It also means they recognize they were wrong about everything


----------



## Oddball (Nov 18, 2012)

editec said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


Right...They galvanized lolberals sooooo much that 8 million fewer of them showed up to vote for their Boiking this time around, than they did in '08.

In the meantime, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake and *gaaaaaasp* Michelle Bachmann won their races.

Yup...Them there lolberals were reeeeeaaally galvanized!


----------



## candycorn (Nov 19, 2012)

TEA Party is alive and well.


----------



## Rshermr (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.
> ...


No one.


----------



## Rshermr (Dec 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > by Leslie Eastman
> ...


I have been to a number of tea party gatherings.  It would also mean that the majority of the tea party members beat the actuarial tables and live past 80 in mass.  And it would also require that a new invention occurs that creates a machine capable of increasing brain cell creation.


----------



## Rshermr (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Good to see you are so happy with the election results.  Keep up the same old program, and we will see the same trend in politics.  Or maybe you could even get Michelle Bachman nominated.  That would be a real win for you tea partiers.   Go for it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

All I'm doing is pointing out that there are TEA Party candidates won and that only losers look to losing for clues on how to win.

But you g'head  and keep a-whistling past the graveyard, comrade.


----------



## Toro (Dec 3, 2012)

The Tea Party has cost the Republican four Senate seats it should have won over the past two elections, and won none that it would not have won otherwise.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

Not if you're not counting the likes of Cruz, Flake, Rubio and Paul.

A stupid shit republican is going to lose every time, no matter who supports him...Just look at Norm Coleman.


----------



## Toro (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Not if you're not counting the likes of Cruz, Flake, Rubio and Paul.
> 
> A stupid shit republican is going to lose every time, no matter who supports him...Just look at Norm Coleman.



You can't be serious.

First, which Republican Senators lost in 2010?

Rand Paul replaced a Republican, Jim Bunning, in Kentucky, a Republican state.

Rubio replaced George LeMieux in Florida, who was appointed by a Republican governor after popular Republican Mel Martinez resigned.

Jeff Flake replaced Jon Kyle, a Republican in Arizona, a Republican state.

And Ted Cruz won in Texas.  A Republican winning in Texas.  Who would have thought?

The idea that they won _because_ they were Tea Party is ridiculous.  They won because they were Republicans in Republican states, and didn't say stupid things.  They were expected to win.  If they had unexpectedly won in blue states, you'd have a point.  But they didn't, so you don't. 

The Tea Party cost the Republicans four states they should have won. It has become a liability.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

Yeah, and?

Rubio won a 3-way race, beating both the democrat and heavily neocon-backed Charlie Crist.

Though, yes, he won in Texas, Cruz's primary opponent was also a GOP neocon establishment favorite.

Bunning was a big establishment guy, where Paul is not.

Flake won in a state with a _*huge*_ Latino population, which is supposed to be an alleged GOP blind side.

So, no, I'm not kidding....If Murdock and Aikin hadn't shot their big yaps off about the ridiculous things that they did, at least one of them would've won....Probably both.

Fact remains that you're always going to end up with a shit candidate or two...Problem is that people like Murdock, Akin, O'Donnell and Angle get trounced while crackpots like Alan Grayson, Al Franken and Debbie Blabberman Schultz get elected....Now, _*that's*_ fucked up.


----------



## Toro (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Yeah, and?
> 
> Rubio won a 3-way race, beating both the democrat and heavily neocon-backed Charlie Crist.
> 
> ...



Shit, I live in Florida.  Once Rubio won the nomination, he had won the state.  Crist was toast because he had no infrastructure and money, and the Democrats put up a patsy who had no chance.

Rubio, Cruz, Paul and Flake all won in states they were supposed to have won.  Name me a single Tea Party senatorial candidate in states where they weren't expected to win?  I can name four that lost in states the GOP was expected to win.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

Crist was backed by the Rove wing of the party and people knew it...I guess the memo hasn't got to those shitheels that America is sick of their bullshit.

Murdock and Akin were in states they were supposed to win, and couldn't even get so much as a tug from Romney's coattails....They shot their mouths off and lost because of it...Doesn't get anymore complicated than that.

Hell, Bachmann even won re-election....IN MINNESOTA....How does that fit into your box?


----------



## Toro (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Crist was backed by the Rove wing of the party and people knew it...I guess the memo hasn't got to those shitheels that America is sick of their bullshit.
> 
> Murdock and Akin were in states they were supposed to win, and couldn't even get so much as a tug from Romney's coattails....They shot their mouths off and lost because of it...Doesn't get anymore complicated than that.
> 
> Hell, Bachmann even won re-election....IN MINNESOTA....How does that fit into your box?



You mean in a Congressional district that she won by 1% in 2012 that she won by 13% in 2010?  That's your example?  Seriously?

Again, Tea Party candidates generally did worse in 2012, and lost states they should have won.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

Yeah, and  "W" is still a "W".

Murdock and Akin lost for no more reason than they ingested their feet along the way...Those who stayed on message won....But there's no media or "mainstream" political hay to be made from pointing out TP supported candidates who win, is there?


----------



## del (Dec 3, 2012)

if it's not the damn *gubmint*, it's the *lamestream media* keeping a man down.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 3, 2012)

Don't you have some new sock puppets to play with, Spaulding?


----------



## del (Dec 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Don't you have some new sock puppets to play with, Spaulding?



i don't run socks, corky.

don't you have some new email addresses to export?

best to jimbo


----------



## del (Dec 3, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQFEY9RIRJA]Cricket Chirping - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 3, 2012)

You will know the Tea Party is dead and gone when RINOs like Lindsey 'Hug Me' Graham finally relaxes, let their voice drop an octave along with at least one of their long gone testicals.


----------



## RightNorLeft (Dec 11, 2012)

longknife said:


> by Leslie Eastman
> 
> As an amateur Egyptologist who occasionally writes about Egypt at the Temple of Mut, my specialty is mummies. So, I know dead things and can say with certainty: The Tea Party is NOT dead.
> 
> ...




  They arent going away but their influence has already been reduced and it will diminsh even further.
  As a former republican who attended a few local teaparty rallies in the beginning I can honestly say in the beginning  they were nothing like what they morphed into 
   The teaparty lost two of their lions, Jim De Mint is leaving the Senate and Dick Armey quit as head of Freedom Works one of the original teaparty Orgs I found that peculiar, traditional Republicans went along with the Grover Norquist Creed, they went along with the Far Right of the rich for the rich philosophy and they got spanked their far right activism failed. Now they are jumping ship at a rapid pace. Boehner set the tone and sent the message when he dumped 4 from committe seats. The pundits and experts like Bill Kristol and other influential non political Republicans want the teaparty to go away. The realize its a loser for the Republican Party.
   Senator Tom Coburn, nicknamed Dr No on taxs has done a 360 and says now says yes to new taxs.
    To cut this short, America Loathes extremist anything left or right. Pelosi and company went extremist bonkers and got spanked, the teaparty followed with far right extremism and got spanked.
     Americans want "REASON" "COMPROMISE" "RESULTS" not a bunch of super rich donors trying to buy an election with a billion dollars because they wanted another tax cut for the super rich.
     America did not buy Paul Ryans <teaparty>  take from everyone plan, dont pay down the debt and give the richest americans and corporations another huge tax cut.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 11, 2012)

Toro said:


> The Tea Party has cost the Republican four Senate seats it should have won over the past two elections, and won none that it would not have won otherwise.



Shhhhhhh don't tell them that.  The Angry White Man syndorme plays into the hands of the left.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 11, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Crist was backed by the Rove wing of the party and people knew it...I guess the memo hasn't got to those shitheels that America is sick of their bullshit.
> ...



Usually you have to fight like a mother for the middle.  As long as the GOP wants to concede it, the Dems should be happy to take it.  

Seriously, if you were watching this from Mars, you'd be laughing at the GOP for embracing the division.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 21, 2012)

The Tea Party is in no doubt to me or any sane Republican the most detremental sector of a party that is already in serious trouble. We are creating a gap between us Republicans and Independent voters. How are we doing this? by placing Tea Party congressman from nowhereville, Kansas who are refusing to make any type of comprimise in congress. Why? because they dont know what they are doing. But how did they get in there if they dont know what they are doing? Well its simple cletus, actual politicians were replaced by Joe the plumber "Cuz he wont let dem gays get married an dats whats important!" I am twenty one, President of my college republicans and one of the most devout REPUBLICANS you will ever meet. I beleive in our core components of fiscal responsibility and social freedoms and it will be I  along with other intelligent conservatives who will eventually have to dig our party out of the grave the Tea Party is putting us in to. God, I hope this isnt a myth.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 21, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party has cost the Republican four Senate seats it should have won over the past two elections, and won none that it would not have won otherwise.
> ...



It is fucking amazing that the Tea Party can spend 100% of its time on economic issues, discussing the scope of government and constitutional intent, and all dumbasses likke candycorn can take away from it is that they are 'angry white men'.


Candy, you are a racist piece of shit.


----------



## Intense (Dec 21, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> The Tea Party is in no doubt to me or any sane Republican the most detremental sector of a party that is already in serious trouble. We are creating a gap between us Republicans and Independent voters. How are we doing this? by placing Tea Party congressman from nowhereville, Kansas who are refusing to make any type of comprimise in congress. Why? because they dont know what they are doing. But how did they get in there if they dont know what they are doing? Well its simple cletus, actual politicians were replaced by Joe the plumber "Cuz he wont let dem gays get married an dats whats important!" I am twenty one, President of my college republicans and one of the most devout REPUBLICANS you will ever meet. I beleive in our core components of fiscal responsibility and social freedoms and it will be I  along with other intelligent conservatives who will eventually have to dig our party out of the grave the Tea Party is putting us in to. God, I hope this isnt a myth.



You are profiling, and in a bad way. I'm Tea Party, I don't subscribe to Gay Bashing, I am Charitable, I act on Conscience, not the flavor or public opinion of the day, I serve Justice, and do take responsibility for my own thought, word, and action. I suggest you check your premise, and knock off the generalizing, and acting like DNC clone, by throwing everyone not on board with your platform under the bus. Liberty, is not so much about conforming to the will of the powers that be, as it is about personal freedom and individual expression and choice, without the fear of being punished without cause, for the exercise of it. What principle would you compromise to gain power over others?


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 22, 2012)

Intense said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party is in no doubt to me or any sane Republican the most detremental sector of a party that is already in serious trouble. We are creating a gap between us Republicans and Independent voters. How are we doing this? by placing Tea Party congressman from nowhereville, Kansas who are refusing to make any type of comprimise in congress. Why? because they dont know what they are doing. But how did they get in there if they dont know what they are doing? Well its simple cletus, actual politicians were replaced by Joe the plumber "Cuz he wont let dem gays get married an dats whats important!" I am twenty one, President of my college republicans and one of the most devout REPUBLICANS you will ever meet. I beleive in our core components of fiscal responsibility and social freedoms and it will be I  along with other intelligent conservatives who will eventually have to dig our party out of the grave the Tea Party is putting us in to. God, I hope this isnt a myth.
> ...



Is there a good way to profile? I am speaking to the majority of what I have read on this website. I am not putting forth a platform, just telling you and the rest of the Tea Party who devided the Republican Party during this last election that they are killing us. I  suggest you look within to the thoughts your Tea Party puts forward. I personally would comprimise plenty of my principles, if in return you would comprimise some of yours. that is how we get things done. I am a Pro-life Republican, if I may assume for a second you are not (even if you are, just play along). I will compromise that they shouldnt be performed by the government and shouldnt occur after the first tri mester if you comprimise that there are reasons for them to occur. I am not compromising principle, im conceeding values so we arent stuck in the gridlock that is going to seriously harm my generation.


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2012)

The true way to power is to exclude others and purify the party, purging all those who disagree and don't march lockstep with our dogma.  That way, the tens of millions of True Conservatives who did not vote this election because Mitt Romney was not conservative enough, not caring one wit whether or not the communist President might be re-elected, will come out and vote for us.  F*** the moderates.  Who needs 'em.

Take it to the bank.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 22, 2012)

YOu must be arguing with an imaginary fellow right winger that exists in your head,  because the complaint you've just objected to is something THEY are saying.[/QUOTE]
Right...They galvanized lolberals sooooo much that 8 million fewer of them showed up to vote for their Boiking this time around, than they did in '08.

In the meantime, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake and *gaaaaaasp* Michelle Bachmann won their races.

Yup...Them there lolberals were reeeeeaaally galvanized! [/QUOTE]

Look at where they won their races.. In places littered with hard line conservatives.. these people would have voted for Garfield the cat before a Democrat. we know we will win in Texas, Minnessota and Arizona's first district.. Its a moot point youre making. We need people that will take swing states so that we can win the general. No one cares how well we did in congress becase a. They dont do anything and b. it means nothing if our candidate isnt in the White House approving the decisions made by congress.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 22, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Yet nobody is fighting for the people who abstain, which is a far bigger pool from which to draw.

If you were watching from Mars, you'd be laughing at the short-sightedness.


----------



## Toro (Dec 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



> Counterfactual thinking is a term of psychology that describes the tendency people have to imagine alternatives to reality. Humans are predisposed to think about how things could have turned out differently if only..., and also to imagine what if?. Counterfactuals are conditional propositions, containing an antecedent and a consequence



Counterfactual thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oddball (Dec 22, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.


----------



## Intense (Dec 22, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...





> Is there a good way to profile?


For starters, try to reserve judgement. 
I'm not dividing anything nor anyone. I'm hear to bear witness, and tell the truth about what I see, from my unique perspective, and I advise you to do the same. I try not to compromise principle, but defend it, with respect for individual liberty and free will. There are things we do not act on without consent. There are circumstances where we do not act without consent. There are always boundaries and limits. We do not abandon reason. Let's distinguish between right action and wrong action. What harms us in part is what we find ourselves caught up in, against our better judgement, concerning our own actions.


----------



## Toro (Dec 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities.  *We have always known through empirical analysis* that these voting blocks voted less.  

Now, the onus is on _you_ to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative _without_ alienating even more of the moderates _who are already voting_ that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis.  Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right.  Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 23, 2012)

Intense said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



But the Tea Party constantly acts without consent of those the legislation they create is affecting. It is their lack of respect for personal liberty that turns me so far off from their platform. What you interpret as a wrong action, I may feel the exact opposite. Im sure many of our opinions are opposite, I'm sure many of our opinions align as well. Im not asking you to abandon reason but understand that we all dont feel the same way about every issue and middle ground always needs to be reached. Look at this fiscal cliff. we're going to go over it because these congressman are on opposite plains of what they think is right and they refuse to comprimise. come on we are smarter than this.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 23, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Toro, that is an unwarranted assertion, and linking to a Wiki on counterfactual thinking doesnt prove jack shit, and you know it.

Shit, is this the best gun grabbers can do these days?.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 23, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Do the googling and then the math yourself, but here is an EXPLANATION, not bothering to dig this shit up for yo since it wont matter in your mind anyway.

1. According to Gallup, 45% of Americans self-identify as 'conservative', while only 20% self-identify as liberal, and 35% identify as moderate.

2. The exit polls show the voters being about 25% liberal, 40% moderate, and 35% conservative. For every vote in the middle gained in the vote in general, there was aloss of two conservative votes.

3. Romney had a significant lead in polls among moderates and it all disappeared in a few days before the lection because of various events in the news, like the way Obama responded to Hurricane Sandy. So the modrate vote that Romney sacrificed two conservative votes for, failed to deliver in the final vote.

So, go ahead and say how crazy that is and how deranged I must be for thinking that way, blah, blah, blah.

In this electorate, a truly conservaative party would go for that 45%, leaving RINOS fighting the libtards in the Democratic Party to fight over and split the 55% left, which gives true conservatives a plurality win.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The only issue with that point is the majority of those who identify themselves as conservative dont live where we need them to. It doesnt really matter if you are hard line conservative or your average run of the mill Republican, If you didnt vote for Romney you have no bussiness in discussing the election from a conservative POV. If we put up Pawlenty or Gingrich we would have swept the shit out of Kansas, but at the end of the day it wouldnt really mean much after getting rocked even worse than we did in Dade or Cinci. I voted for Romney because he was the best candidate and any repub who abstained in this election because of his lack of "true" conservative values might as well have voted for Obama, becuae you did nothing to get him out of office.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 24, 2012)

Toro said:


> The true way to power is to....



JEEBUS! Why are RINOS and neoMarxists always talking about taking power? In a Republic, no one group has power, especially not a single person like the Obamessiah. 




Toro said:


> exclude others and purify the party, purging all those who disagree and don't march lockstep with our dogma.  That way, the tens of millions of True Conservatives who did not vote this election because Mitt Romney was not conservative enough, not caring one wit whether or not the communist President might be re-elected, will come out and vote for us.  F*** the moderates.  Who needs 'em.
> 
> Take it to the bank.



There is very little difference between Obama and Romney except that what Obama wants to do  right now, the RINOS are willing to do more gradually so they can figure out how to make money off it first.

Romney was chosen because of the simplistic stupid-shit analysis of the left-v-right paradigm. It seems to make sense to retards that you do the Old Nixon strategy of securing the party base in the primaries and then moving to the center in the general election.

But it isnt 1968 anymore, and what RINOS think is a moderate position is actually far left of the center for most in this country.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 24, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> The only issue with that point is the majority of those who identify themselves as conservative dont live where we need them to. It doesnt really matter if you are hard line conservative or your average run of the mill Republican, If you didnt vote for Romney you have no bussiness in discussing the election from a conservative POV.



Lol, you say that as if GOP = conservative. And I am conservative on about 2/3 of the issues, and to the left on the rest, and those are mostly pro-blue collar working class economic interests.



YoungRepublican said:


> If we put up Pawlenty or Gingrich we would have swept the shit out of Kansas, but at the end of the day it wouldnt really mean much after getting rocked even worse than we did in Dade or Cinci.



No, you probably would have lost more in those places, but having the third of conservatives who stayed home, instead turn out to vote in the other counties would have more than made up the difference.

Doesnt it make you stop and think for even a second that the simple fact that the GOP has had less turn out with the last two RINOS at the top of the ticket, lower vote totals than Buish had in 2004? The RINOS are killing the GOP, and good I say; lets ahve a REAL choice from now on. I dont mind the Dems have power to 2020 if need be to get rid of all the fucking RINOs who have destroyed the GOP.



YoungRepublican said:


> I voted for Romney because he was the best candidate and any repub who abstained in this election because of his lack of "true" conservative values might as well have voted for Obama, becuae you did nothing to get him out of office.



Hell conservative issues are SAFER with Obama in the White House because it averts the 'Only Nixon Could go to China' syndrome.

Nixon goes to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> As a political metaphor, it refers to the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among his supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw their criticism and even opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. Although the example is that of a hardliner taking steps toward peace with a traditional enemy, and this is the most common application of the metaphor, it could also be applied to a reputedly cautious diplomat defying expectations by taking military action, or a political leader reforming aspects of the political system that they have been strong supporters of.



Right now the GOP can stop anything the Dems put forward and stop it dead cold because they control the House. The only problem that they have is that hey have a humbnuts like Boner in charge who shits his pants every time the Obamessiah clears his thought.

But with a President Romney? Control of the House becomes ineffective as the then leader of the GOP can ram through anything he wants if he is willing to through the TOM folks under the bus and build a coalition in Congress of Democrats and RINOs.

The thought of President Romney is thus FAR more problematic, IMO.

But the methods used by the RINO leadership to force Romney on the public, manipulating the Iowa results to steal Santorums momentum he would have had, then letting h im have credit only after they needed a strong Santorum wave to split the conservative vote with Gingrich, the way they manipulated the ballot process in Virginia to only allow Romney and Paul on the ballot in that state, and the many other shenanigans building up to the fiasco of a convention where they rammed through a rules change that lets the RNC change rule in the GOP without being in a convention, thus giving the RNC complete control, all that tells me that the RINO are just as fascistic and thuggish as the Demowhores who are behind their messiah.

It doesnt matter what party is in charge these days; they are just opposite sides of the same Statist coin.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 24, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell _* that's*_ supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 24, 2012)

Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind. As for the third party being added, it would just devide us more than we already are. finally, the way I see our voter turn out, especially in this election is, if you claim to be a conservative and still at the very least didnt vote to get Obama out of office then you have no place to talk about the election. Only those who voted have earned the right to talk about the change they wanted.


----------



## Toro (Dec 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Ventura was a third party candidate who attracted a lot of outsiders otherwise disgusted with the process and won with 37% of the vote.  There is no equivalence on a national scale within a two-party system.  The best equivalent to your Ventura analogy is Ron Paul and we know how well that fared.  

Ventura didn't win on ideology.  Your solution - and correct me if I'm wrong - is to have a more conservative candidate to inspire conservatives to come out and vote, right?  That's based on ideology.  Try and see this another way.  If a liberal said this, "We need more liberal candidates so that more liberals who otherwise wouldn't vote would come out and vote," would you agree?  It's (almost) as valid as the conservatives saying we need more conservative candidates.  Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have said this in the past.  But having a more conservative (liberal) candidate to attract more nonvoting conservatives (liberals) will push away moderates who are already voting, and bring out liberals (conservatives) who aren't voting to vote against the more conservative (liberal) candidate.

History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates.  There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy.  One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.


----------



## del (Dec 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



minnesota =/= usa

thanks for playing


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 25, 2012)

The Tea Party is not dead it just smells that way.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Dec 25, 2012)

Votto said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.
> ...



Fear drives the threatened to some pretty extreme actions.  One thing that can be said about the Tea Party, it strikes fear into the hearts of all big government proponents.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



The only fear the Tea Party strikes in me is the fact that it makes all of us other conservatives look stupid. I am against the ACA, but the thing is I know why I am against it and see a few things in it that may have use. You people drove Mitt Romney off of the stage because of his own healthcare plan that was, if you knew anything about economics, a good plan. Trust me soon all of the tea party members will be passed or too old to be taken seriously and we can reclaim our party. I give it 10 or 15 years. hopefullt people still find the GOP credible by then


----------



## Oddball (Dec 26, 2012)

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


That there hasn't been one so far doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that the greatest pool of available voters out there aren't the abstainers.

Vetura won because he told it like he saw it and was sincere....He talked straight, with little equivocation...He didn't deal in broad, nebulous, hairy-fairy crapola like hopey-changey.



Toro said:


> History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates.  There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy.  One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.


No, inside-the-beltway and lamestream media "conventional wisdom" tells us that.,....Forgetting the fact that Reagan didn't govern like one, he campaigned twice sincerely and unabashedly on conservative principles.

Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.


----------



## del (Dec 26, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



i'm sure president-elect paul agrees with your very astute observation.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind.



Well, the facts support the contention I am making, though the false right-left dichotomy makes it difficult to buy into. You have to eject that model first before you can see where things really are in this country.



YoungRepublican said:


> As for the third party being added, it would just devide us more than we already are.



No, we are already well divided, but a third party would give a voice to the 40% to45% of Americans that self-identify as conservative.



YoungRepublican said:


> finally, the way I see our voter turn out, especially in this election is, if you claim to be a conservative and still at the very least didnt vote to get Obama out of office then you have no place to talk about the election. Only those who voted have earned the right to talk about the change they wanted.



Well, I am not an idieological conservative. I am an historically conservative person in that I think Western Civilization and Christendom were things to cherish and protect. The conservatives of today are mostly about economics and national security with no depth in the cultural norms that got us where we got to.

As to the Democans or Republocrats; there isnt a spit's worth of difference between them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 26, 2012)

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



While I agreed with Paul on more issues than not, he was no Reagan conservative by any measure, in fact he denounced Reagan as too moderate.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind.
> ...



I dont even know what to say about that last claim though.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 26, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Reagan was a conservative?


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Holy shit. I cant deal with people on this site who think that the GOP and my personal ideological hero isnt a conservative.. Are you kidding me?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



He did not overspend and shrunk the government?

Percentage wise he increased the debt more than Obama.

Raised SS withholding too much and gave congress about 2 trillion in surplus to spend.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



He increased mitlitary spending (Conservative value) which is what increased the debt. The highest tax rate was around 70% and he brought it down to about 28%, which increased revenue to the treasury by 19%. During his presidency, 15 million jobs were created and unemployment went from 7.1% to 5.5%. 

He tried to cut spending as well, but congress is in charge of spending and they blocked all efforts to cut anything.


----------



## del (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



generally speaking, conservatives aren't big on deficit spending.

reagan was every bit as conservative as obama is marxist.

he talked a good game, though.


----------



## del (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...



you know less about history than you do about politics

kudos


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

del said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



My senior thesis (30 pages long) is on the United States government and its role post ww II to 1989.. You tell me what I know about History my man


----------



## del (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...



i'm not your man, and if you use the right grade of paper, your senior thesis would be adequate for wiping my bum.

i believe starbuck's is hiring, my man.

best scoot your ignorant ass down there and apply before the real heavy hitter french literature majors steal a march on you.

bon chance, herodotus


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

del said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



HAHAHA. I am waiting on my law school acceptance letters that are in the bag. I really have nothing more to say than that, and my paper was an A-.. not to shabby, huh? That insult sure backfired, didnt it? I dont need to resort to insults because I dont know you.. maybe you have your Phd in hist, butt im guessing you dont. So dont insult me having no clue what my actual credentials are


----------



## del (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...



how long were you a member of seal team 6?


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

del said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



What does that have anything to do with what we are talking about?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Citizen was just yanking your chain, but he is a good guy liberal, not a fucking neoMarxist fucktard like Joeblowme or Starkey the Liar. Those last two are just keyboard-trained monkeys disguised as internet personalities.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...



I dont know, but it seems to me he ispointing out that over the intgernet people can claim to be just about anything; so claiming to be an expert or to know what you are talking about has to be based on your command of the relevant facts and a rational ability to chain those facts together into a lucid argument or perspective.

That's all.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



gotcha on the first part. Im not pretending to be anyone I want to be.. If I was I'd do a helluva lot better than a college senior going into debt up to his head, its not a pretty lifetyle (Kinda sucks) I am no expert, just trying to use the knowledge leaned from a paper to respond to a comment. I did refrence the paper for the facts though..Cant remember everything these damn profs shove down my throat.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 27, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > YoungRepublican said:
> ...



Yeah, I hear you. If I was going to pose as a fake internet dude, it would not be a fat, old, diabetic red head (there's millions of those already), but my 5 years in the infantry and my various experiences working jobs to support my family as I took 17 years to finish my degree, all that has learnt me a few lessons, lol.

As to your claims, dell has a point, you have to demonstrate what you know, but a second point he implied (intending to or not) is that your description of yourself is comparable to claiming to be on seal team six. So if you're telling the truth, Merry Christmas, he just gave you about the best damned compliment I can imagine.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 27, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Trust me sir, I have no bussiness being placed in the catagory of you or any member of the military as it regards to experience. If it was a compliment I thank him, I didnt get where I am right now asking for anything from anyone. Im just looking for a good conversation to kill some time on my break. Merry Christmas to you too


----------



## Oddball (Dec 27, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


He campaigned as one, though his deeds scarcely lived up to the rhetoric....Which is pretty much my point.


----------



## del (Dec 27, 2012)

Oddball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



which point was that?




Oddball said:


> Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.




this one? or a different one? do you actually have a point?


----------

