View Poll Results: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Definitely

    5 15.15%
  • Probably

    6 18.18%
  • Maybe

    5 15.15%
  • Probably Not

    7 21.21%
  • Definitely Not

    5 15.15%
  • Other (Please Explain)

    5 15.15%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

  1. #61
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Candidate A is your man. Like the founders, Libertarians want no standing army. You're no Libertarian.
    That's laughable on its face. The Founders always maintained a small standing force; there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.

    It is not a libertarian -- small-l or big-L -- tenet to abolish the military entirely.

    Why don't you figure out what a "Progressive" is first, before you start incompetently lecturing others in what they believe?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #62
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You could possibly say the Bush Tax Cuts if viewed on singularly on their own measure rather than in the total context of his policies. A few of the market aspects of Medicare Part D have proven somewhat fiscally successful, but as a whole that policy can't really be put forward as an example. But yeah, there's no much to hang your hat on.
    The tax cuts are probably his best bet, but when you factor in that there were no matching (at a minimum) cuts to spending and spending in fact went up, it no longer becomes a fiscally conservative policy. So yeah, as you say there isn't much to hang your hat on when it comes to Bush. Which was my original point. When you look at Bush's record, he wasn't "our guy". He just was a guy who happened to have a R next to his name rather than a D.

    I do believe such a point DOES exist. I just think its a lot farther off than people like you, and I to a point, would like. While we may consider ourselves pragmatic...realistically we're still more idealistic than the average voter.

    Its going to take something massive, and on something that is a hot button issue for the average person, similar to what you just described to finally cause such a choice to occur. Sadly....spending a lot in one way or spending a lot in another way, right now, isn't cutting it for causing that pragmatic nature to be tossed out
    .

    Yeah, I'd agree that I'm probably more idealistic than the average voter. But is it overly idealistic to expect Republicans to deliver something that is truly fiscally conservative? I don't think the issue with most voters is pragmatism, its apathy and ignorance. They don't care enough to be informed, so they fall for the lies like that the Republicans made "historic" cuts a few years back. They buy the empty rhetoric without ever asking if they follow up on it after they get elected. And they buy into the propaganda that Obama is a far left socialist when in fact on most issues he's governed a lot like a third term of GWB would've looked like.

    A pragmatic person would demand SOMETHING from the GOP. Fiscal conservatives have got nothing from them for at least the last 12 years. But so many of us keep acting like the Republicans are our team. To use a sports analogy, it would be like people in Philadephia still cheering for the A's even though the team left town about 60 years ago.

    I agree that being tastier than cardboard isn't something to brag about. But it's apparently enough, at least it has been for some time and appears that it will be for some time in the near future. And I agree with you that it'd be more beneficial in the long run for Republicans to take a stand and say "no, wer'e not going along with this anymore". I just don't think its going to happen...and I can't really blame people for it to be honest even if I disagree with it.
    I guess that's the point of difference for us. I do blame them. I blame them for being blindly partisan. I blame them for not keeping "their team" accountable. I blame them for not keeping themselves informed and just swallowing any line the party tries to sell them. I blame them for letting the GOP take their votes for granted and never standing up and demanding anything beyond empty rhetoric. I do blame them. And I used to be one of them, but no more.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  3. #63
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    hopefully not
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown, replying to another View Post
    I love it when people tell me what a real libertarian is. As if there was some handbook we all have to follow. Defense is a legitimate function of the state. [...]
    Well, somebody has to clue you guys in. And there is a handbook... dictionaries and other reference resources, political science theory, and even the -- gasp -- Libertarian Party. Now a Republican can call themself a Libertarian, just like a man can call himself a woman... however, the inquisitive observer can usually tell the difference.

    The current military budget is at least 300% more that what we could conceivably need for defense (like, half a trillion $ more )... therefore a true Libertarian would never try to legitimize that monetary monstrosity, which could only be utilized for imperialist and entangling purposes (again, the antithesis of libertarianism).

    There are some Tea Party types out there that want the military budget cut, but I don't think there are any that want it cut down to true libertarian size. Of course, the Sarah Palin (neo-con) faction of the Tea Party want no cuts at tall (have to spread, via force, Christian values to the world and all that). However, truly libertarian folk like Ron Paul are not afraid to take the hatchet to the DoD.

    Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

  5. #65
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw, replying to Karl View Post
    That's laughable on its face. The Founders always maintained a small standing force; there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.

    It is not a libertarian -- small-l or big-L -- tenet to abolish the military entirely. [...]
    You would do well to educate yourself with the positions, policies, and fears of the founders -- for one thing they feared was a standing army (which I noted, which you disputed). I could give you lots of quotes, as well as a Constitutional cite (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 12), but I'd imagine everyone else knows that picture so I will not waste their time.

    As to "abolish the military entirely", well, you'll have to take that up with your strawman.
    Last edited by Karl; 02-25-12 at 09:38 PM.

  6. #66
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    Well, somebody has to clue you guys in. And there is a handbook... dictionaries and other reference resources, political science theory, and even the -- gasp -- Libertarian Party. Now a Republican can call themself a Libertarian, just like a man can call himself a woman... however, the inquisitive observer can usually tell the difference.
    Implying I'm a Republican loyalist. That's funny. And using the Libertarian Party as the definative measuring stick for all libertarians. That's also funny. The LP is a radical extremist party that demands its members accept radical minarchism as the only acceptable version of libertarianism and it goes far beyond what many libertarian minded people would advocate.

    The current military budget is at least 300% more that what we could conceivably need for defense (like, half a trillion $ more )... therefore a true Libertarian would never try to legitimize that monetary monstrosity, which could only be utilized for imperialist and entangling purposes (again, the antithesis of libertarianism).
    Where exactly did I try to defend the current defense budget? I'm all for cuts to the military budget, along with cuts in many other places. I merely said that I was opposed to the fictional stances of Candidate A (disband the entire military) and Candidate B (disband the entire airforce and navy). Nice attempt at a strawman, but better luck next time.

    There are some Tea Party types out there that want the military budget cut, but I don't think there are any that want it cut down to true libertarian size. Of course, the Sarah Palin (neo-con) faction of the Tea Party want no cuts at tall (have to spread, via force, Christian values to the world and all that). However, truly libertarian folk like Ron Paul are not afraid to take the hatchet to the DoD.

    Are you a Ron Paul supporter?
    What is a "true libertarian size" for the military? And how did you, a self described progressive, get appointed as the arbitrator of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism? You know maybe, just maybe, libertarianism is diverse ideology with room for reasonable differences and disagreements among those who fit under that broad banner. Just like liberalism, progressivism, conservativism, and pretty much every other -ism. Libertarians don't have to be in lock step agreement on every issue.

    As for Paul, yeah I support Paul. He goes farther than I would in a number of areas, but he represents a crucial change in direction that this country needs.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  7. #67
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    As to "abolish the military entirely", well, you'll have to take that up with your strawman.
    You should really try reading the posts you quote. Then again you tried to imply that I'm a Republican hiding under a libertarian name when I've spend most of this thread bashing the Republican's for never living up to the their small government fiscal conservative agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw
    there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.
    Emphasis mine. Clearly he is referring to my fictional Candidate A
    .
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  8. #68
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown, replying to Karl View Post
    You should really try reading the posts you quote. [...]
    Physician, heal thyself. I was not talking to you in the post that you quoted.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    Implying I'm a Republican loyalist. That's funny. [...]
    If you do not support draconian cuts in the military, you're no Libertarian. That is merely my point, brought upon by your advertised lean (which I'm on record as disputing in general, so as not to make this a personal issue).

    As to your lukewarm support for Ron Paul, were I a libertarian, I would find no problem with supporting him wholeheartedly. As a Progressive, I also have lukewarm support for him (which again belies your advertised lean... but again, nothing personal).

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoclown View Post
    And how did you, a self described progressive, get appointed as the arbitrator of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism?
    As a self described intelligent observer and student of politics, I appoint myself as arbiter of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism. As a student of logic, I know the logical fallacy in your assertion that I, as a 'non-libertarian', am therefore automatically somehow unqualified to make such an analytical determination.

    The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
    What could be more authoritarian, more likely to produce coercion and violence, than a large, standing military?
    Last edited by Karl; 02-25-12 at 11:36 PM.

  10. #70
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    If you do not support draconian cuts in the military, you're no Libertarian. That is merely my point, brought upon by your advertised lean (which I'm on record as disputing in general, so as not to make this a personal issue).
    Define draconian. I'm sure plenty of interventionist hawks would call my ideas draconian, but I suspect you wouldn't. Draconian is in the eye of the beholder. I've heard people call plans that merely slow the rate of increase in government spending to be "draconian". I've heard people all Obama's proposed defense reductions "draconian". I wouldn't consider either to be draconian and I would personally like to see deeper cuts on both fronts.

    As to your lukewarm support for Ron Paul, were I a libertarian, I would find no problem with supporting him wholeheartedly. As a Progressive, I also have lukewarm support for him (which again belies your advertised lean... but again, nothing personal).
    Lukewarm? Just because I said he occassionally goes too far on some issues? So if I don't line up 100% with Paul, I'm a lukewarm supporter? Few people line up 100% or even 90% with any candidate. I voted for Paul in the 08 primaries and voted Libertarian in the general election. I intend to vote for Paul in this primary and if he's not the nominee, I'll almost certainly be voting third party again. Just because I don't think Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ like some of his supporters does not mean that my support is lukewarm or that I'm not a "true libertarian".

    As a self described intelligent observer and student of politics, I appoint myself as arbiter of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism. As a student of logic, I know the logical fallacy in your assertion that I, as a 'non-libertarian', am therefore automatically somehow unqualified to make such an analytical determination.
    I never said you were unqualified. I just find it interesting that you are so interested in who is or isn't a "true libertarian" when you yourself are not a libertarian. You have no dog in the debate for ideological purity among libertarians. In fact I question anyone who believes they are the arbitrator of what is "true" libertarianism or any other -ism. Ideologies are not black and white. There are room different degrees under each broad category. Not ever person is a robot who follows the dogma of their given ideology blindly. Sometimes I do disagree with mainstream libertarian thought. Just as I disagree with mainstream conservatism on certain points, mainstream liberalism, and every other ideology. But I'm closest to libertarianism and have priorities and emphasize values from a libertarian lense. If that's not good enough for you or for anyone of any lean, too bad.

    What could be more authoritarian, more likely to produce coercion and violence, than a large, standing military?
    How about being invaded by a violent coercive authoritarian nation because we don't have a sufficient standing military to deter such an attack? I said it before and I'll say it again, defense is a legitimate function of the state. Do we spend far more than is necessary for defense? Yes. We spend far more thanhis necessary to even project our power and defend our interests overseas. Defense spending should be cut. But I don't want to completely gut the armed forces.

    Physician, heal thyself. I was not talking to you in the post that you quoted.
    Yeah, so? To use one of your lines, just because your post wasn't addressed to me I'm not qualified to point out the inconsistencies and lack of reading comprehension?
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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