The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[JB Lions]

"And your evidence for this funding is....?"

When they first started popping up, it was on the news. Funded by the RNC.

Address their arguments? That Obama was born in Kenya? Or when they call him the n word? Or he should be tried for treason? Crazy people don't put up any good arguments.

 

[Domainace]

"And your evidence for this funding is....?"

When they first started popping up, it was on the news. Funded by the RNC.

Which news exactly? Could you provide a link? I know it was often claimed by the Dems that it was funded by Republicans rather than a real grassroots event, so I'm sure many people took that claim at face value But I would need to see a verifiable source before I could accept it.

 

[JB Lions]

You can go right to the Wikipedia page:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement"]Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"In an August 30, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch and Koch Industries are providing financial and organizational support to the Tea Party movement through Americans for Prosperity, which David founded"

Americans for Prosperity - Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is an American conservative political advocacy group headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

Another would be FreedomWorks - FreedomWorks is a conservative non-profit organization based in Washington D.C., United States.

An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of 647 local Tea Party organizers asked "which national figure best represents your groups?" and got the following responses: no one 34%, Sarah Palin 14%, Glenn Beck 7%, Jim DeMint 6%, Ron Paul 6%, Michele Bachmann 4%.

After no one, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. 2 nuts.

 

[RaiderGirl]

..

 

[Domainace]

You really haven't established that the Republicans created the Tea Party, just that there are supporters - as there are in any grass roots movement that gets traction.

Speaking of crazy, it would be crazy for the Republicans to create a group that mostly feels nobody in DC represents their views. Why would they do something like that? It makes no sense to create a party that is hostile to your own interests.

The platform, according to your Wikipedia page is this:

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).

Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%).

Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%).

Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).

Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: De-fund, repeal, and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).

Pass an "all-of-the-above" energy policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).

Reduce earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).

Reduce taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

Now, which of these is a crazy/racist idea? I can see where you might not agree with a few of them, but I don't see any crazy ideas here. In fact, I'm sure there are a few even you agree with. It doesn't even mention immigration, so if you think responsibly managed borders are racist, I'll let you have that one.

 

[JB Lions]

"You really haven't established that the Republicans created the Tea Party, just that there are supporters - as there are in any grass roots movement that gets traction."

Ok, the foundation, the money that props them up. It's all from Conservative groups. They are basically all Republicans. This is an article that goes into some of the problems I was talking about:

http://prospect.org/article/three-new-facts-about-tea-party

"Speaking of crazy, it would be crazy for the Republicans to create a group that mostly feels nobody in DC represents their views. Why would they do something like that? It makes no sense to create a party that is hostile to your own interests."

Went over that earlier - "More poor strategy from the right." See the link I posted at the beginning of this post, that goes into it some.

"Now, which of these is a crazy/racist idea?"

More the people in the Party. Again, join their FB page, go to their blog, get into the conversation.

As far as all the issues you listed from Wikipedia, those are basically Ron Paul type stuff. We have a thread dedicated to him here that goes into some of that already, and some of the other less mainstream issues.

It's really a party within a Party. For sake of argument, if you ever had an election where it was Dem vs. Rep vs. Tea Party, Dem would win easily. Any votes for the Tea Party, would just be less votes for Republicans.

 

[Domainace]

Ok, the foundation, the money that props them up. It's all from Conservative groups. They are basically all Republicans. This is an article that goes into some of the problems I was talking about:
http://prospect.org/article/three-new-facts-about-tea-party

Again, using your own reference above from an established left-wing magazine:

"Tea party activists are not Republicans."

and

"...the GOP once hoped to co-opt the movement." (Meaning, of course, that they didn't.)

This is your source, not mine.

So far as the people in the movement being nutters, look around. Most people are ignorant, and many are hateful, regardless of their political views. So it serves little purpose to try to denigrate a movement on the basis of individual personalities involved.

I agree I don't want to go into each detail of their platform here, but you would have to agree there's nothing crazy about it. If you actually do think the ideas are crazy, then nothing said here will convince you otherwise. I juts find it odd that citizens in the country that talks most about freedom have so little of it - and seem perfectly happy to lose even more. That's what I think prompted the Tea Party to form.

 

[JB Lions]

Again, using your own reference above from an established left-wing magazine:

"Tea party activists are not Republicans."

and

"...the GOP once hoped to co-opt the movement." (Meaning, of course, that they didn't.)

This is your source, not mine.

Yes, but I actually read beyond the title. You saw this:

"Tea Party activists are not Republicans."

and stopped. But if you read:

"While the number of Tea Party supporters has declined since 2010, they still make up around half of Republicans,"

"Seventy-three percent of Republicans who attended a political rally or meeting identified with the Tea Party. The activists are vehemently anti-Democratic."

"I juts find it odd that citizens in the country that talks most about freedom have so little of i"

I know you find it odd. You're in Japan, so have no idea. And your views on that, we already went thru them in the other thread. Was it you or some other dude that actually said Communist China had more freedom?

"I agree I don't want to go into each detail of their platform here, but you would have to agree there's nothing crazy about it. If"

No, we would not have to agree. Again, went thru that in the Ron Paul thread.

Yes, it was you:

"I haven't been a US resident for over 20 years"

"At least, in China, the people have some idea of how free they are"

 

[Domainace]

Certainly former Republican voters would be more inclined to join the Tea Party than Democrats, but that doesn't mean the Republican party created the Tea Party, which is where we started. Look the UKIP and the Conservative party in the UK for a similar trend.


"I haven't been a US resident for over 20 years"
"At least, in China, the people have some idea of how free they are"

Second is an opinion, but one that I stand by. The first is true, so your point is what?

 

[eyedomainous]

Koch Bros. Bankrupt

The Koch Bros. spent well over $400 Million attacking President Obama on the economy, accusing the President of economic "Armageddon" on America, especially on American businesses.

Well, how have they done under Obama?

In 2008 the Koch Bros were 37th on the Forbes Richest list, with $17 Billion.

In 2013 they are 6th on the list, with $34 Billion.

So they doubled their money, on Obama's watch.

Bottom line: The Koch Bros. are morally bankrupt.

 

[verbster]

Certainly former Republican voters would be more inclined to join the Tea Party than Democrats, but that doesn't mean the Republican party created the Tea Party, which is where we started. Look the UKIP and the Conservative party in the UK for a similar trend.

You both seem right in your own way. While you are not exactly in sync, you're close enough. If you are looking for a specific name or example of "the Republicans" who formed it, all you have to do is read the entire Wikipedia entry. It will guide you through the mailing of tea bags, who called the first meeting using the moniker (the "Tea Party"), and how it grew and was financed. You could call it a grassroots movement, but you also need to recognize the people involved in the early creation and popularization were predominantly conservative Republicans and some Libertarians, with the Republicans doing almost all of the financing both privately and publicly.

"I haven't been a US resident for over 20 years"
"At least, in China, the people have some idea of how free they are"

Second is an opinion, but one that I stand by. The first is true, so your point is what?

The point seems to be that your statement that you correctly classify as an opinion is left open as what could be interpreted as either a negative statement or positive but supported neither way and reflects on your credibility to comment on the politics of a country you don't live in. I lived in China about 20 years ago, but I sure wouldn't feel confident in making sweeping statements about a country farmer's current personal understanding of freedoms in Beijing Vs. New York.

Stating that Chinese citizens "have some idea of how free they are" is the same as saying they have some idea of how they are not free. However, if "most people are ignorant," how would they know? And which part of China are you speaking for?

You wrote, "...you would have to agree there's nothing crazy about it [the Tea Party platform]. If you actually do think the ideas are crazy, then nothing said here will convince you otherwise. I juts find it odd that citizens in the country that talks most about freedom have so little of it - and seem perfectly happy to lose even more. That's what I think prompted the Tea Party to form."


The problem here is that you are presenting the platform points in their best possible light but not including the craziness of the people who will "champion" them based on their personal perspectives (like Palin and Paul), people and their ideologies the public clearly rejected in the last two elections.

The other aspect you left out is the second part of the platform equation; and rightly so because it doesn't exist: The plan of how to achieve these goals. The ways offered to achieve the platform goals are what I would truly call crazy because of the lack of regard for the collateral consequences. It's easy to say we need to cut spending and cut taxes and have more freedoms, but as far as I can tell, there is no consensus plan on how to do the platform list or what the effects will be. It hasn't been thought through.

Lastly, there has been little indication the Tea Party is willing to play well with others. It's their way or the highway no matter what the consequences or impact of their actions.

 

[RaiderGirl]

Anyone who follows politics would know the Tea Party is more about fiscal conservatism than anything else, And to compare them to the Republican party, clearly their ideology on most issues is more in line with the Libertarian party, but regardless of party, any of these 3 occupying the executive branch would be a great improvement to the massive spend policies of the last 4 1/2 years, not to mention all the corruption.

It's generational theft no matter how you look at it.

 

[verbster]

Anyone who follows politics would know the Tea Party is more about fiscal conservatism than anything else, And to compare them to the Republican party, clearly their ideology on most issues is more in line with the Libertarian party, but regardless of party, any of these 3 occupying the executive branch would be a great improvement to the massive spend policies of the last 4 1/2 years, not to mention all the corruption.

It's generational theft no matter how you look at it.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.~ Ronald Reagan"

Yes, the Tea Party is about what you are calling fiscal conservatism, but that wasn't the question being discussed.

"Fiscal conservatism" and "generational theft" are nice sounding terms, but what do they actually mean, and how are they going to be addressed? I'd enjoy reading any Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian document that honestly addresses the consequences of reaching their goals.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."~ Cheney

 

[DU]

....wtf was i thinking...

 

[Domainace]

The Koch Bros.... they doubled their money, on Obama's watch.
Bottom line: The Koch Bros. are morally bankrupt.

I think we both agree then that Obama has been very good to the super wealthy, who are able to take advantage of a politicized economy. I would think that makes Obama the morally bankrupt one, not the Koch brothers. But to each his own.

The point seems to be that your statement that you correctly classify as an opinion is left open as what could be interpreted as either a negative statement or positive but supported neither way and reflects on your credibility to comment on the politics of a country you don't live in. I lived in China about 20 years ago, but I sure wouldn't feel confident in making sweeping statements about a country farmer's current personal understanding of freedoms in Beijing Vs. New York.

The ways offered to achieve the platform goals are what I would truly call crazy because of the lack of regard for the collateral consequences.

It's their way or the highway no matter what the consequences or impact of their actions.

If a knowledge of country farmers in China is all that's needed here, I guess have one up on you. I talked to countless country farmers - it was part of my job when I lived there. And, as you would expect, they are not especially well-informed as a rule. I was referring to educated Chinese. And, as a rule, they have a better appreciation of freedom than equally educated Americans... in my opinion. Someone write, in this thread I think, that less government meaning more freedom is ridiculous - when it's obvious and beyond debate that laws and regulations, by definition, restrict freedom.

Regarding collateral consequences, I really have to disagree. I don't think they will be that bad short term, and that they will immensely outweighed by positive consequences long term. It's pretty obvious that the state has displaced roles that have been traditionally well-managed by families and communities. If there are any problems, it is because the state did this. The sooner communities, families and individuals take back responsibility for themselves, the sooner things will improve. That's my opinion as well, but one I'm pretty confident in. Unfortunately, in the case of the US, it looks like things will get far more authoritarian before they ever get better - and that's due to the huge lack of appreciation for freedom and personal rights (except on marginally relevant or pet issues).

 

[DynamoMoe]

this section hard to read with so much hate and attaks.

I read and try to follow politicing but nobody talk to each other.

not learn anything except which who hate who

 

[verbster]

this section hard to read with so much hate and attaks.

I read and try to follow politicing but nobody talk to each other.

not learn anything except which who hate who

Sorry it comes across that way. it's possible to strongly disagree about a topic without hating the person who wrote it. Personally, I learn a lot. I don't think agreement with viewpoints is necessary for learning. Maybe just the opposite....

---------- Post added at 06:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 AM ----------

I think we both agree then that Obama has been very good to the super wealthy, who are able to take advantage of a politicized economy. I would think that makes Obama the morally bankrupt one, not the Koch brothers. But to each his own.

For sure, congress has been good to the Kochs.

If a knowledge of country farmers in China is all that's needed here, I guess have one up on you. I talked to countless country farmers - it was part of my job when I lived there. And, as you would expect, they are not especially well-informed as a rule. I was referring to educated Chinese. And, as a rule, they have a better appreciation of freedom than equally educated Americans... in my opinion. Someone write, in this thread I think, that less government meaning more freedom is ridiculous - when it's obvious and beyond debate that laws and regulations, by definition, restrict freedom.

Educated Chinese definitely know how much freedom they don't have. What I meant by farmers was that their freedoms and the knowledge they have about them is very different than other citizens of the many cities and various economic zones, especially the new class of noveau riche.

Regarding collateral consequences, I really have to disagree. I don't think they will be that bad short term, and that they will immensely outweighed by positive consequences long term. It's pretty obvious that the state has displaced roles that have been traditionally well-managed by families and communities. If there are any problems, it is because the state did this. The sooner communities, families and individuals take back responsibility for themselves, the sooner things will improve. That's my opinion as well, but one I'm pretty confident in. Unfortunately, in the case of the US, it looks like things will get far more authoritarian before they ever get better - and that's due to the huge lack of appreciation for freedom and personal rights (except on marginally relevant or pet issues).

You presume your sweeping statements (opinions) are accepted as true: ...won't be that bad; immensely outweighed; pretty obvious; displace roles; take back responsibility; things will get far more authoritarian; lack of appreciation for freedom...etc.

On some statements, I probably partially agree with you, but can't be sure.

Do you have a specific topic that can serve as an example, like education, food stamps, social security.... or even something minor.

 

[GILSAN]

this section hard to read with so much hate and attaks.

I read and try to follow politicing but nobody talk to each other.

not learn anything except which who hate who

That is especially true of American politics.

Here are some "Quotes About Politics" that I like and perhaps you may enjoy.

“The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte

“A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.”
― H.L. Mencken

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”
― Winston Churchill

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
― Edward R. Murrow

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert

“It’s scary to be a woman on a blind date. For all she knows the man she is meeting up with could be a rapist, a murderer, or, God forbid, a politician.”
― Jarod Kintz

“I once saw a snake having sex with a vulture, and I thought, It’s just business as usual in Washington DC.
”
― Jarod Kintz,

“One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
― Plato

“The Roots of Violence: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, Politics without principles."
― Mahatma Gandhi

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
― Winston Churchill

“Society is like a stew. If you don't stir it up every once in a while then a layer of scum floats to the top.”
― Edward Abbey

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.”
― Peter Stone

“A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”
― Winston Churchill

“I once watched several criminals engage in an organized argument, while an audience of supporters cheered them on, but I was so disgusted that I had to turn off the political debate. 
”
― Jarod Kintz,

“Politicians are like warts on the body of society. And the only thing worse than warts are lawyers and lobbyists.
”
― Jarod Kintz

“Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.”
― Ronald Reagan

“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not Guilty'.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“I once saw a politician walking a dog, and I thought, “How absurd—an animal walking an animal.” Then I thought, “If given the choice, I’d rather vote for the dog.”
”
― Jarod Kintz

“Insider trading is a serious crime. Do you know what the penalty for doing it is? Nothing, if you’re a member of Congress.
”
― Jarod Kintz,

“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
― George Bernard Shaw

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
― George Carlin

 

[DynamoMoe]

ha. Some funny quote in there.

 

[RaiderGirl]

why you mean? I no know these peoples.

The more I think about it, ZigmundF wouldn't portray himself as someone from the Dominican Republic, he's too much of racist to do that... Your definitely someone from DNF, and I'm not buying into the poor grammared newbie from the Dominican Republic, which makes me wonder what your objective here is?

Only time will tell.

this section hard to read with so much hate and attaks.

I read and try to follow politicing but nobody talk to each other.

not learn anything except which who hate who

Maybe you can tell us "who hates who"? Because I don't see ""hate" here at all, I don't anything like the vicious personal attacks they have on DNF, not even close...

Here on NP, when a member loses an argument, he/she doesn't go into Google and dig up a members family history and use that information to attack his opponent, that's what they do on DNF, but since your a member there you would already know that wouldn't you?

Ideologically, JBLions and Verbster and I disagree on most everything politically, but I'm sure if I met either one of these guys in person and we left politics at home, we would be the best of friends... Discussing politics doesn't have to get personal, heated YES, that's expected, but not personal, theirs a difference.

Look back to where the P-Section was on DNF a few years ago and look at it today, it's a graveyard that nobody posts in anymore, all because a small group of intolerant assholes who happen to be liberal, drove the conservative voice out with their vicious personal attacks, When you drive out opposing viewpoints, what are you left with? your left with everyone agreeing with one another, making it one BORING ass forum...

Amazing how one narcissistic asshole can destroy a perfectly good forum... Say hello to the gang for me, will you "Dynamoe"?