I've actually done some work for Tea Party members. They are some of the nicest people I've met. I can't figure out what it is about the politic arena in America that seems to only show this rabid side of it all.
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
They are nice and well-intentioned usually. But also generally quite thick and naive about politics, international affairs, science, finance and economics, and social issues. Other than that they are lovely and polite. They are good at gun laws, I'll give them that.
Disagree, those that I've met are very knowledgeable, especially with the political, finance and economics side. The people I did work for are actual members of the Tea Party not just there supporters. These guys run the party in 5 states. I'll never agree with their politics but I'm blown away at how nice they are.
Sure. 'Extreme' is a relative word. What matters is whether the viewpoint is accurate, not how rare or 'extreme' (whatever you're trying to say by that) they are.
Intellectual consistency is more respectable (even if wrong) than pandering.
He wants to abolish the IRS, put the US back on the gold standard, and who knows what other lunacy. He's as loony as his father.
Just because you disagree with him, doesn't make him loony.
Moderation seems to indicate centre politics, which has no intellectual grounding and essentially becomes pandering to as many people as possible to get elected.
No, his beliefs and politics do that.
What's wrong with getting rid of the IRS and going back to the gold standard anyway?
Not in the current political climate where right-wing is extreme and left is more centrist.
Depends on what exactly you mean by right-wing or left-wing. If by left-wing you mean socialist or at least socialist influenced, no prominent politician in either American party is anywhere near there. And if by right wing you mean libertarian, well, the Tea Party managed to get a few of them into the US congress (in the UK I only know three - Douglas Carswell, Danial Hannan and Steve Baker).
You have someone like Bernie Sanders, though, who may technically be an independent but caucuses with the Democrats. I'm sure there are many more who would not call themselves socialists, but have been influenced by socialist ideas.
Yeah, but how prominent in the party is he? I mean the Libertarian-ish contingent in the GOP has only become so vocal and influential over the last 5 years or so. Ron Paul was in Congress for about 30 years, but he wasn't remotely influential.
It's just a two-party system where the median voter is somewhere to centre-right. The loony right only got vocal because Obama was voted in and they decided he was a socialist for some reason.
Historical (and I guess tactical) reasons. That being said, I don't think Obama was the reason; it was the corporate bailouts after the financial crisis that really egged it on. On 'the left', you had the Occupy movement, and on 'the right' came the Tea Party. It's just that the Tea Party had a little bit more political staying power.
lots of racists hide behind the tea party. Fortunately they are being outvoted. They will eventually become a regional party and become irrelevant.
They might become irrelevant in the long run, but I'm not sure where the racist thing comes from.
Rand Paul's foreign policy is enough for me to want him to be US President, as far away from my economic beliefs as he is. It'd be enough to change the world in a huge way, end American interventionism and economic manipulation. Also the reason they will never allow him to be the Republican candidate.
Every US President no matter what party or what they say Will intervene overseas as and when needed. Just a matter of how often.
Rand Paul will never be POTUS. That's a hilarious notion. Is he actually considered a serious candidate?
The whole idea of isolationism was a farce, the US has always intervened in South America when they have had the chance, and did so throughout the 19th and 20th centuries when they were meant to be non-interventionist.
It's a hard life. Voters vote with different issues in mind. For instance, social policies and economic policies are two different things, but a voter may decide to vote for a party only because he agrees with the LGBT policies of one party. It's kind of sad that the 'extreme' sides of both the parties are quiet extreme and there is no common ground at all. For instance, I'm yet to see a republican contender who is fine with abortion laws for all, supports LGBT policies and be reasonable about gun laws. The progressives for instance see Republicans as religious nuts.
now that fatty is toast....Rand Paul is the best option of the teabaggers. But going by Faux...looks like they still want to push an Obama hugger even though he is clearly damaged.
EDIT: This could be the real test if the Teaparty has full control of the GOP.
I heard Hannity, Beck and Levin all back Rand Paul and Ted Cruz for the presidential run last week. I'm not sure how influential they are though.
He doesn't have a hope of winning the centre. Fatty did.
Yeah, but 'Fatty' is an opportunistic dickbag who does the same 'moderate' pandering I was referring to previously. Reminds me of Ed Balls.
Nobody can win without the centre. Moaning about how politics is done is all a bit pointless. Watch what they do rather than what they say.
I don't care much for politics to be honest (I don't even vote). Who ultimately wins is of no consequence because the structure of the system necessitates very similar policies from most politicians.
At the same time, no-one can win the Republican nomination while appearing moderate. That's why Romney lost the election before the primaries had even finished, he's as moderate as they came that year but he had to fight for the base support against vicious opponents from within the party.
At least Rand Paul already has strong support in the independents, and young people (for a GOP candidate) thanks to his dad.
It always annoys me when people say things like this, I have to admit. I'm no big fan of the US Democrats, and a two party system does create a large grey area, but there are still significant differences between the two parties. Do you think anything like the Affordable Care Act would have been passed under McCain or Romney? There are many such examples. A little bit of political cynicism is healthy, but people sometimes take it too far.
Well, yeah. Romney enacted a not too dissimilar healthcare plan when he was the Governor of Massachusetts.
Even if Romney would not have replicated his healthcare plan on a national level, to suggest that this one policy is a 'significant difference' between the two ruling parties shows just how narrow the American political spectrum is. Obamacare will make a real difference to peoples lives, the healthcare system for those who could not afford insurance as it was pre-Obama, simply didn't care for citizens and this should. So yes there are slight variations in taxation and public spending and this is evidence of that, but this is perceived as being insignificant because they all have the same policies towards the 'big issues', that determine where the majority of US government money goes, whether to bail-outs or drone tech. The federal reserve, middle-east intervention and national security are issues on which the American people have no say, because none of these policy areas are decided by either elected wing of the ruling party.
It really depends on how you define 'significant differences' I guess, but as long as they keep claiming to be a democratic country then people are right to be more than a little bit cynical about US politics.
Yes, in Massachusetts. And it was heavily used against him by opponents on both sides in the election. There's no way he would try to or get away with doing something similar on the national level. He'd be eaten alive.
Yup. There was no appetite among the repubs for a national healthcare reform. Massachusetts is a liberal state that bears no relevance.
Romney ran for the nomination before, with the individual mandate for health-care being one of his key policies. And even in 2012, he said he would repeal the act and pass something similar sans the individual mandate because it had become so unpopular because of the Tea Party's sudden emergence and moving the discussion within the party to direct opposition of the act altogether.
But some of you think the Tea Party is not going to be around for very long anyway.
The Tea party will be around....they just will have increasingly more power in the GOP and increasingly less power over the country as time goes on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/chris-christie-investigation_n_4588132.html
Sandy Funds distribution being investigated now. Not surprised really.
Sandy Funds distribution being investigated now. Not surprised really.
"ON MAY 17 the Senate Select Committee began its hearings on Watergate. Five days later, on May 22, I issued a detailed statement discussing my relationship to the matter. I stated categorically that I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate operation and that I neither knew of nor took part in any subsequent efforts to cover it up. I also stated that I would not invoke executive privilege as to testimony by present and former members of my White House Staff with respect to possible criminal acts then under investigation...
My consistent position from the beginning has been to get out the facts about Watergate, not to cover them up."
—Richard M. Nixon
Christie wont have anyone to pardon him though......
My consistent position from the beginning has been to get out the facts about Watergate, not to cover them up."
—Richard M. Nixon
Christie wont have anyone to pardon him though......
The boss has his say on Christie
- Status