• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Tea Party split from the Rebublican Party

Should the Tea Party split from the Rebublican Party


  • Total voters
    41
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.
I voted no. A split would only insure Democrats win more elections.

If anyone should split - and I mean "split" in the sense of get the heck out of Dodge, it's the RINOs in the party.
 
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.

Sorry shipmate but dividing the Republican Party is not the answer.
 
I voted no. A split would only insure Democrats win more elections.

If anyone should split - and I mean "split" in the sense of get the heck out of Dodge, it's the RINOs in the party.

But define RINO. In name only meaning what? Abortion, for example, is a religiously driven issue in the GOP. In that Tea Partisans want very much to eliminate abortions, and birth control, that's big government. RINO? Religion in government. RINO? Opposition to gay marriage, a religious issue. RINO?
 
LOL...

I guess from the perspective of a liberal trying to see across the fence, that's true.

truse me though...

The tea party attitude has little respect for RINO's, and vise-versa.

Its true the Tea Party is mad at the Rinos in the party but by doing it ensures Hillary's election in 2016. I see when of the people who responded yes was Disney Dude. Of course he would want that.
 
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party? I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties. And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong. They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.

That would be sorta like when they split the DC-men from the HT's. The HT's still carried their same share of the load, and the DC-men had it fairly easy as far as I could tell. But at least the HT's could, um, encourage the unrated junior personnel who weren't doing so well to join the DC rating, because there they'd find a home with people just like them. So maybe the Republicans would benefit from letting the Tea Partiers go their own way after all...
 
With the recent brutal fight over the Borrowing limit and funding the ACA and another fight just around the corner would this be a good time for the Tea Party to create their own Party?
The tea partiers used to have their own party -- it was called the Libertarian Party .. still is.


I think they would draw people from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Uh, yeah .. strong fiscal-economic conservatives from the Republicans who didn't care all that much about conservative social issues and strong social liberals from the Democrats who didn't care all that much about liberal economic issues.

That's a libertarian: freedom-over-security on both economic-fiscal and social issues.


And if the public support is as large as they think it is then how could they go wrong.
It's not.

The Libertarian Party was never a player and still isn't; never will be.

Libertarianism mostly appeals to single young white males who've had unresolved issues with even valid authority figures. Thus it will never be a player with women, parents (especially middle-aged and older), and more psychologically adjusted people in general.


They have some of their own corp. donors. They could have their own platform and not have to piggy back off the GOP.
Yeah .. they tried that for so long, having their own party (The Libertarian Party), but then a bunch of them decided that wasn't working (no, duh!) and decided to hitch a ride on the right side of an elephant like a flock of oxpeckers. Not sure the symbiosis is working.
 
Gee, I'll have to remember that the day I say, "The real Republican Party is the ginchiest, most cool party ever." Why you felt you needed to tell me this is a little puzzling . . . but what the hey . . . it's a free interenets.

There was a little bit of assumption behind my post. I assumed you were a purist that thinks the Republican Party should live exactly by the party platform. That would be a recipe for disaster. The Republican Party should instead strive to bring us closer to our principles with realistic actions. You know. Like the Democratic Party has done for over 100 years.

The way a party should function is they pick one leader and all other elected Republicans blindly support everything that he/she ask them to do. Sometimes you have to work as the minority party. Sometimes you have to work as the majority party. When you are the minority party you have to lean more to the left to accomplish things. When you are the majority party you have the opportunity to move toward the right but not to the extreme.

I'm a Republican but I have to admit Republicans are much more divided than the Democrats. They are divided to the point of being incapable of taking any action.

vasuderatorrent
 
The tea party has no interest whatsoever, of course, since they know that as a separate party, they have no - or barely any - chance to be as heard and seen as they are now. Their exposure on a national level would - as for any other party aside form the Dems and GOP - be minimal, and they would be one of the many other "other parties" out there.

The most successful third party in American history is the Prohibition Party. The Prohibition Party had two realistic items on their platform and only two. Their goal was never to get their candidates elected to office. Their goal was to splinter the two existing parties in order to force the two major parties to change their position. By the way the two items from the Prohibition Party was women suffrage and the prohibition of alcohol. It took them over 20 years to accomplish it but they were successful. Women are allowed to vote now and alcohol was prohibited for 14 years. Some may say the 18th Amendment was a failure but I disagree. Alcoholism was extremely common in the early part of American history. Now alcoholism only impacts a very small fraction of American families.

My point is that the Tea Party has an idea that isn't popular enough to be adopted by a major political party but popular enough to steal votes from the Republicans. Now they just need an idea that will split the Democratic Party too.

Their goal could be a Balanced Budget Amendment like most states already have and legalizing marijuana which has already been done in several states. One issue splits the Republican vote. The other issue splits the Democratic vote. I just don't know if the Tea Party leaders are humble enough to think in strategic terms.

vasuderatorrent
 
All this is a pipe dream, though, as the US' political system makes a viable third party all but pointless. In a parliamentary system (which I would prefer in this country, but we can't have because "OMG WHAT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT LIKE A RELIGION"), a split would have already occurred, probably 3-4 years ago.
 
I voted no. A split would only insure Democrats win more elections.

If anyone should split - and I mean "split" in the sense of get the heck out of Dodge, it's the RINOs in the party.

I agree! Anyone who is moderate or independent should leave the GOP and join the Democrats. We have a large enough tent to accept moderates and independents. Let the GOP be just the completely wacked out far fringers and see how far that gets them. I'm fine with that.
 
I voted no. A split would only insure Democrats win more elections.

If anyone should split - and I mean "split" in the sense of get the heck out of Dodge, it's the RINOs in the party.

I'd really like to know how you plan on expanding the sphere of influence of the Republican Party with that attitude. Democrats in my neck of the woods had to adapt, much to the annoyance of the hardcore DNCers, but it worked. It's all good to find out somehow you are ideologically pure (though I also question that), but it's another thing entirely to get power. Well, that is of course making the assumption that the "true" Republicans actually like having power. If they don't, then we can certainly assist them in making sure they won't. A smart Republican would want to water down his platform to get more folks in certain regions and call them Republicans. A dumb Republican would refuse on principle.

On a side note, Theodore Roosevelt also used the RINO pejorative (though not in name) against Taft supporters due to their lack of progressivism (even though this too is exaggerated on his part). These things tend to change.
 
Last edited:
There was a little bit of assumption behind my post. I assumed you were a purist that thinks the Republican Party should live exactly by the party platform. That would be a recipe for disaster. The Republican Party should instead strive to bring us closer to our principles with realistic actions. You know. Like the Democratic Party has done for over 100 years.

The way a party should function is they pick one leader and all other elected Republicans blindly support everything that he/she ask them to do. Sometimes you have to work as the minority party. Sometimes you have to work as the majority party. When you are the minority party you have to lean more to the left to accomplish things. When you are the majority party you have the opportunity to move toward the right but not to the extreme.

I'm a Republican but I have to admit Republicans are much more divided than the Democrats. They are divided to the point of being incapable of taking any action.

vasuderatorrent

More like a huge bit of assumption . . . but thats OK. It is a political debate website after all. I have to assume this stuff is going to happen. By the way, what is a Republican purist?
 
But define RINO. In name only meaning what? Abortion, for example, is a religiously driven issue in the GOP. In that Tea Partisans want very much to eliminate abortions, and birth control, that's big government. RINO? Religion in government. RINO? Opposition to gay marriage, a religious issue. RINO?
Well look at it this way, on every one of those issues the Democrats are united - abortion (check); birth control (check); big government (check); anti-religion (check); gay marriage (check); and on down the line, be it welfare (check), immigration (check); spending (check and double check)...

The Republicans have let the Democrats dictate our issues for us - issues that have done more to split us than anything else. Worse than allowing them to dictate our issues, we've let them dictate our values as well.

A "RINO" then (imho) is anyone in the Republican Party who lets others dictate what it is they value, and that for the singular purpose of staying in office because they value that more than principles, especially the principles on which our party once stood. I despise people who capitulate at the drop of hat, who think compromising their values is the path to success, who seek to appease their opponents in congress rather than represent their constituents back home if the former will ensure their longevity in D.C. In general, those are the RINOs, "representatives" who have lost the moral sanction to represent anyone but themselves, who "go along to get along," men and women who provide by their equivocal values concrete definition for the need for term limits.
 
I chose "no", but it probably should have been "other".

I think the "tea party" is one of the main bases of the republican party, so I think that the republican party should become the tea party.

If some of the republicans do not want to go that route, they should break off and form another party, or join the democrats.
 
what is a Republican purist?

Someone that is willing to uphold the principles of the Republican Party exactly as stated instead of using them as a guiding force. They will even take it to the extreme of political suicide or as an excuse to turn against a fellow Republican. They fail to see the Republican Party as a team. They instead see it as an ideal that should be kept in it's purist form.

vasuderatorrent
 
Someone that is willing to uphold the principles of the Republican Party exactly as stated instead of using them as a guiding force. They will even take it to the extreme of political suicide or as an excuse to turn against a fellow Republican. They fail to see the Republican Party as a team. They instead see it as an ideal that should be kept in it's purist form.

vasuderatorrent

Oh . . . well, Ahh OK . . . now I understand why you thought I was saying the real Republican Party was neato-keato really cool. That assumption was right there to be made. I'm just kiddin' my man . . . evrything's A-OK . . . OK?
 
Then they have the worst name since PLASTIC GLASS.

Can't really argue with that. While a mild bit of common sense should indicate that "party" is a word that has multiple meanings and is used, in part, for allusionary purposes I can fully understand where the confussion comes in for everyday people with regards to it being a "political party" due to it's ties to politics. What boggles my mind are actual politically inclined and educated individuals, especially those who've had it clearly explained ot them, who still at times ignorantly represent it as an actual "political party".

Which is why in the long run they will not survive. The mainstream party will tire of their parasite nature and you already see signs of that coming out of the latest shut down debacle of which they are getting major negative blowback. If they try it again in the coming year - those negatives will only rise.

Eh, I disagree. Most political movements are parasitic in nature. There's never going to be a successful anti-war, environmentalist, religious, fed-ending 3rd party out there that focuses just on those things. ALL political movements generally latch onto one of the two big parties and simply try to steer them.

I think the Tea Party movement will likely remain around for some time, though its intensity will likely not be anywhere near as strong as it was in 2010 without some kind of galvinizing factor being in play again. I think the general mentality of it can't easily be jettisoned however because I do think it's a mentality held by a large cross section of the Republican base.

In the end, they will NOT form a true Tea Party and only attempt to hijack the Republican Party as they do NOT have the skills, talent and ability to run a day-to-day political party and all it entails.

This is just a strawman fashioned to allow you an excuse to toss out insults and nothing more. The reality is that by and large, most people who ask about the "Tea party" being an actual POLITICAL PARTY are people who are NOT part of the movement. More often then not, Tea Partiers have no distinct desire...other than perhaps as an empty threat as a means of persuation...of legitimately starting a 3rd party. They seek to function like the Anti-War movement and other political movements, steering the national party that most closely aligns to them in the direction they like. If the movements membership is big enough to have an impact, then it will successfully cause that move or the party will actually suffer for it. If they don't have enough, then it will fail. Simple as that. You gleefully toss your insults about skill, talent, and ability because it reveals your true intent is to just be that...insulting. The reality is simple...they don't have the DESIRE to run or be a day-to-day political party.
 
TP candidates would be silly to split from the GOP.... this split would only serve to have them cast out of the system entirely..... no money, no debates, limited ballot access..... all the bad mojo that current 3rd parties have to deal with now.
 
But define RINO. In name only meaning what? Abortion, for example, is a religiously driven issue in the GOP. In that Tea Partisans want very much to eliminate abortions, and birth control, that's big government. RINO? Religion in government. RINO? Opposition to gay marriage, a religious issue. RINO?

The presidential candidate for a political party is a clear indication of the desires of the voters of said political party.Tell me about the last GOP presidential candidate that was a Libertarian - Tea Partier..

Why did Libertarians like, for example, Pat Buchanan land on networks like CNN to critisize a GOP administration (W. Bush)? Tell me where Libertarians sided on the Patriot Act. Was this an agreement with the majority of the GOP? No.


Why do Libertarians like, for example, John Stossel, have TV documentaries on Fox News that only address the excess of gov't spending? Why do former dem administration aids and Libertarians like, for example, Dick Morris land on FOX News? Answer: so they can lambaste the excesses of gov't spending (in this case, ObamaCare). I wonder which Libertarian trait got Morris booted from Fox News?

Libertarians/tea partiers are RINOs? Yes.
 
Last edited:
Can't really argue with that. While a mild bit of common sense should indicate that "party" is a word that has multiple meanings and is used, in part, for allusionary purposes I can fully understand where the confussion comes in for everyday people with regards to it being a "political party" due to it's ties to politics. What boggles my mind are actual politically inclined and educated individuals, especially those who've had it clearly explained ot them, who still at times ignorantly represent it as an actual "political party".

You have some valid points there and I will stand up and admit that for me - the name is something of a pet peeve that irrates me to no end. The fact is - and you recognize this - is that they are NOT a political party and their name says otherwise since they are deeply involved in politics and elections.

Time will tell as which one of is correct on their longevity. I already see signs of their waning power. Not making a move in the last presidential election did not help them.


This is just a strawman fashioned to allow you an excuse to toss out insults and nothing more. The reality is that by and large, most people who ask about the "Tea party" being an actual POLITICAL PARTY are people who are NOT part of the movement. More often then not, Tea Partiers have no distinct desire...other than perhaps as an empty threat as a means of persuation...of legitimately starting a 3rd party. They seek to function like the Anti-War movement and other political movements, steering the national party that most closely aligns to them in the direction they like. If the movements membership is big enough to have an impact, then it will successfully cause that move or the party will actually suffer for it. If they don't have enough, then it will fail. Simple as that. You gleefully toss your insults about skill, talent, and ability because it reveals your true intent is to just be that...insulting. The reality is simple...they don't have the DESIRE to run or be a day-to-day political party.

Yes - I insult them because they are worthy of insults. Let them or their apologists sue me.

They do not run as a political party for all the reasons I previously cited. And the whole bit about its only people NOT part of the movement who are confused or criticize the name is very true. True - but deserved just the same. I suspect the same could be said for those outside the North American Man Boy Love Association and how that name confuses them.
 
If they want to be legitimate in any way, yes
 
Back
Top Bottom