• 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
The tea party does not have any of the skills, ability or intelligence to run an independent political party and function as one in competitive races around the nation. And then there is the uncomfortable lack of just plain guts given that they have absolutely no desire to do anything but exist as a parasite... lice ... on a larger host and feed off that while doing none of the work themselves.

They would NOT be willing to accept the short term consequences of such a move - a significant decrease in the ability of the right to win elections resulting in more Democratic candidates being elected and the subsequent decrease in right wing power in state legislatures and in the Congress. Their abject hatred and loathing of government and progressive policies bind them in chains to the Republicans and they dare not break those shackles.
 
Last edited:
BMCM said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they want to split the conservative vote and make sure democrats win more of the closely contested congressional positions, that would be a great way to do it.
 
BMCM said:
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.
Click to expand...



The TEA Party folks need to get their messaging right.

The popularity of the idea is Fiscal Restraint and they are growing away from that central theme to embrace the fringe whacko conservative loonies.

As long as they are painted with the White, racist, religious zealot whacko template, they will avoid the main group that will support them.

I am a fiscal conservative who is a social liberal. What this means to me is that if it costs tax money, it must be curtailed. The farther the expenditure occurs from the payer of the taxes, the greater that curtailment must be.

I don't really care if anybody wants to do anything that does not harm others who choose to not be involved in the doing of the deeds in question.

Social freedoms abridged by government or financed by government should be rare.
 
Doing so would hurt their political standing, so they have no reason to leave.
 
Perotista said:
Each candidate and each party has their list of donors, fat cats etc. Then there is the corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, etc. These last ones usually support incumbents more than challengers as incumbents usually win regardless of party. The two parties have different committees for the house and senate and a national one that receives donations and distributes them. Having worked for Perot, I know how hard it is to get a corporation/wall street firm etc to give money to a third party candidate which if the tea party split from the GOP it would become. These institutions do not like have to give to two parties much less three. But they want the people who we elect to owe them.

I did a search for tea party members in congress which gave me 60 names in the house after 2010 and 47 after last year. 8 tea party members in the senate after 2010 and 6 after last year. So there is already a thinning. So perhaps we might just let nature take its course and look at another thinning next year. But the question I have, with this thinning how many winnable seats will be lost because of a candidate that has no appear outside his base?
Click to expand...



Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are what i would consider to be Republican TEA Party people who have a rational approach to the political life.

They embody and campaign to achieve what the fiscally responsible are hoping for in this country.

They are demonized by the Democrats and their willing stenographers in the MSM.
 
code1211 said:
Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor are what i would consider to be Republican TEA Party people who have a rational approach to the political life.

They embody and campaign to achieve what the fiscally responsible are hoping for in this country.

They are demonized by the Democrats and their willing stenographers in the MSM.
Click to expand...

Demonetization comes with the territory. What most people can't see is the need to sacrifice a little today in order to continue on with a lot of helpful programs like SS and Medicare in the future. If it means raising the age one become entitled to SS, instead of from 62-67 as it is today to 65-70 do it. 65 was chosen because that was the average life span back when SS first began. Today, what is it 75 or some where near. the thing is this country is in dire financial trouble and we still want to keep adding spending and programs.

My comment is if we do not all sacrifice a little to day, we will suffer a whole lot in the future. Once we fall into that abyss and it is coming, what good is a social security check at 62 if all it can buy is a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.
 
I'm going to say yes, but only because that would destroy the Republican Party, and maybe give the libertarian party a fighting chance.
 
Perotista said:
Demonetization comes with the territory. What most people can't see is the need to sacrifice a little today in order to continue on with a lot of helpful programs like SS and Medicare in the future. If it means raising the age one become entitled to SS, instead of from 62-67 as it is today to 65-70 do it. 65 was chosen because that was the average life span back when SS first began. Today, what is it 75 or some where near. the thing is this country is in dire financial trouble and we still want to keep adding spending and programs.

My comment is if we do not all sacrifice a little to day, we will suffer a whole lot in the future. Once we fall into that abyss and it is coming, what good is a social security check at 62 if all it can buy is a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.
Click to expand...

I think that part of the problem is that people don't see DC sharing in the sacrificing! And I'm talking about the POTUS on down! They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around! The people who created these problems exempt themselves from the laws they pass that affect everyone else; their salaries remain the same no matter what hardships befall the people; and if people only had to work the number of days they do on a yearly basis for a minimum salary of $175,000, everyone would feel better treated! And when they want more money in their paychecks, all they have to do is vote on it, and Voila, it's there! :naughty: How on earth did we ever allow them to do this with our money?
 
polgara said:
I think that part of the problem is that people don't see DC sharing in the sacrificing! And I'm talking about the POTUS on down! They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around! The people who created these problems exempt themselves from the laws they pass that affect everyone else; their salaries remain the same no matter what hardships befall the people; and if people only had to work the number of days they do on a yearly basis for a minimum salary of $175,000, everyone would feel better treated! And when they want more money in their paychecks, all they have to do is vote on it, and Voila, it's there! :naughty: How on earth did we ever allow them to do this with our money?
Click to expand...

No, saying they have to vote on their own pay raise is wrong. Several years ago they passed a law that automatically raises their pay without a vote. They have to vote in order not to receive their pay raise. Their salary is just the tip of the ice berg, how would you like to go serve for 2 years which qualifies you for their retirement system which means once you are defeated or retire from congress you can receive the same salary for the rest of your life. Heathcare, provided by the government and hence the congress exempting themselves from the ACA. Then their is their GYM and Cafeteria where costs are slow low that what you or I would pay for a hamburger they pay that for a T-Bone Steak or Lobster and this goes on and on and on.
 
Per the OP question: it's inevitable. Tea Partiers have an ideology they hold strongly to under all circumstances. Sometimes it serves Tea Partiers to be aligned with GOPs, sometimes with dems.

Tea Partiers don't have an allegiance to any political party. Tea Partiers have an allegiance to an ideology (like the socialist dem wing comprised, for example, by Reid, Peolsi, and Obama) . If there ever where a RINO (Republican In Name Only) group within the GOP, it would be Tea Partiers.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
No, saying they have to vote on their own pay raise is wrong. Several years ago they passed a law that automatically raises their pay without a vote. They have to vote in order not to receive their pay raise. Their salary is just the tip of the ice berg, how would you like to go serve for 2 years which qualifies you for their retirement system which means once you are defeated or retire from congress you can receive the same salary for the rest of your life. Heathcare, provided by the government and hence the congress exempting themselves from the ACA. Then their is their GYM and Cafeteria where costs are slow low that what you or I would pay for a hamburger they pay that for a T-Bone Steak or Lobster and this goes on and on and on.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on the increased pay thing, but I remember when they used to have to vote on it. However, when you consider that what they replaced it with is even better for them, since it is now "automatic" and they don't have to explain to their constituents why they're salaries are increasing, it's brilliant! Why can't they use the energy they spend looking out for themselves, and apply it to the problems this country faces? Uh huh, Riiight! :notlook: :yawn:
 
polgara said:
I stand corrected on the increased pay thing, but I remember when they used to have to vote on it. However, when you consider that what they replaced it with is even better for them, since it is now "automatic" and they don't have to explain to their constituents why they're salaries are increasing, it's brilliant! Why can't they use the energy they spend looking out for themselves, and apply it to the problems this country faces? Uh huh, Riiight! :notlook: :yawn:
Click to expand...

Time to bring back the citizen legislature. I do not think term limits is the answer as in a way we do have term limits with ever we have an election. But I say make congress live under the same laws we have to, after all they passed them, no more exempting congress. no more retirement system, after all our founders and framers looked at congress as someone who would go to Washington to perform some public service and then return to his home and job, not make a career out of it. Do away with salaries, the first congress's were paid per diem only. Health care, just make the VA or a military clinic and hospital available to them. Housing, put them up on Ft McNair or other military housing units cost free to them. You get the picture, without all the benefits, I am sure most would not make it a career. We would have fresh blood coming to Washington all the time and I would bet a dollar to a donut, a lot of the partisan bickering would cease. A lot of this party over country would cease.
 
Perotista said:
Demonetization comes with the territory. What most people can't see is the need to sacrifice a little today in order to continue on with a lot of helpful programs like SS and Medicare in the future. If it means raising the age one become entitled to SS, instead of from 62-67 as it is today to 65-70 do it. 65 was chosen because that was the average life span back when SS first began. Today, what is it 75 or some where near. the thing is this country is in dire financial trouble and we still want to keep adding spending and programs.

My comment is if we do not all sacrifice a little to day, we will suffer a whole lot in the future. Once we fall into that abyss and it is coming, what good is a social security check at 62 if all it can buy is a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.
Click to expand...




We'll be like France. And with the bread and eggs, we can have French Toast.
 
I'd love that. Let the radical right all flock there, have moderates and centrists full the vacuum in the republican party, allowing the radical left to take over the democrats.

We'd be left with a real rational and pragmatic party of moderates and centrists in the "new" republican party and the country could laugh at all the ideologues on each fringe.
 
Perotista said:
Demonetization comes with the territory. What most people can't see is the need to sacrifice a little today in order to continue on with a lot of helpful programs like SS and Medicare in the future. If it means raising the age one become entitled to SS, instead of from 62-67 as it is today to 65-70 do it. 65 was chosen because that was the average life span back when SS first began. Today, what is it 75 or some where near. the thing is this country is in dire financial trouble and we still want to keep adding spending and programs.

My comment is if we do not all sacrifice a little to day, we will suffer a whole lot in the future. Once we fall into that abyss and it is coming, what good is a social security check at 62 if all it can buy is a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.
Click to expand...

Social Security is sound financially, for the time being, and is not contributing to the national deficit. So there's no need to "reform" it at this time. There are many blue collar workers whose bodies fail, or who get laid off and will not be able to get other employment (not many employers want to hire seniors, esp at decent wages). I am empathetic to them. They hang on, waiting for Social Security. I saw a road worker last year and my heart went out to him. An older man wearing his orange vest, limping across the road in front of me, as I was stopped at a stop light. He carried his tools of the trade. I would hate to tell him that he has to limp along in his physical job, with a disability, for three more years. (He didn't have a full disability that would get him SS Disability payments....which are sparse payments, anyway).

Medicare is another story. Medicare Part D is what sent Medicare over the hill, is my understanding. It cost $1 Trillion Dollars and wasn't funded, to provide Rx coverage. Additionally, there is STILL that provision in Part D that prohibits the govt from negotiating with Big Pharma over prescription prices (shameful....it makes no sense not to be able to negotiate a discount when your group has millions of people in it!). The ACA adds to Part D, filling in the donut hole partially, I believe...but that is funded by the ACA.

If the U S does something about the outrageous cost of prescription medication in the country, then Part D could at least be modified to decrease coverage. And take out that provision prohibiting negotiating with Big Pharma for discount pricing. The US pays more for medicines than any other country. And Big Pharma loves it. They use some of their enormous profits to run all those ads pushing medications for everything imaginable, while there are no ads recommending yoga, daily exercise, eating vegetables, and the like, which would cure a lot of illnesses.
 
JumpinJack said:
Social Security is sound financially, for the time being, and is not contributing to the national deficit. So there's no need to "reform" it at this time. There are many blue collar workers whose bodies fail, or who get laid off and will not be able to get other employment (not many employers want to hire seniors, esp at decent wages). I am empathetic to them. They hang on, waiting for Social Security. I saw a road worker last year and my heart went out to him. An older man wearing his orange vest, limping across the road in front of me, as I was stopped at a stop light. He carried his tools of the trade. I would hate to tell him that he has to limp along in his physical job, with a disability, for three more years. (He didn't have a full disability that would get him SS Disability payments....which are sparse payments, anyway).

Medicare is another story. Medicare Part D is what sent Medicare over the hill, is my understanding. It cost $1 Trillion Dollars and wasn't funded, to provide Rx coverage. Additionally, there is STILL that provision in Part D that prohibits the govt from negotiating with Big Pharma over prescription prices (shameful....it makes no sense not to be able to negotiate a discount when your group has millions of people in it!). The ACA adds to Part D, filling in the donut hole partially, I believe...but that is funded by the ACA.

If the U S does something about the outrageous cost of prescription medication in the country, then Part D could at least be modified to decrease coverage. And take out that provision prohibiting negotiating with Big Pharma for discount pricing. The US pays more for medicines than any other country. And Big Pharma loves it. They use some of their enormous profits to run all those ads pushing medications for everything imaginable, while there are no ads recommending yoga, daily exercise, eating vegetables, and the like, which would cure a lot of illnesses.
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree.
 
JumpinJack said:
Social Security is sound financially, for the time being, and is not contributing to the national deficit. So there's no need to "reform" it at this time. There are many blue collar workers whose bodies fail, or who get laid off and will not be able to get other employment (not many employers want to hire seniors, esp at decent wages). I am empathetic to them. They hang on, waiting for Social Security. I saw a road worker last year and my heart went out to him. An older man wearing his orange vest, limping across the road in front of me, as I was stopped at a stop light. He carried his tools of the trade. I would hate to tell him that he has to limp along in his physical job, with a disability, for three more years. (He didn't have a full disability that would get him SS Disability payments....which are sparse payments, anyway).

Medicare is another story. Medicare Part D is what sent Medicare over the hill, is my understanding. It cost $1 Trillion Dollars and wasn't funded, to provide Rx coverage. Additionally, there is STILL that provision in Part D that prohibits the govt from negotiating with Big Pharma over prescription prices (shameful....it makes no sense not to be able to negotiate a discount when your group has millions of people in it!). The ACA adds to Part D, filling in the donut hole partially, I believe...but that is funded by the ACA.

If the U S does something about the outrageous cost of prescription medication in the country, then Part D could at least be modified to decrease coverage. And take out that provision prohibiting negotiating with Big Pharma for discount pricing. The US pays more for medicines than any other country. And Big Pharma loves it. They use some of their enormous profits to run all those ads pushing medications for everything imaginable, while there are no ads recommending yoga, daily exercise, eating vegetables, and the like, which would cure a lot of illnesses.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear! How is it that the cost of part D never seemed to cause much of a ripple, yet the cost of Obamacare caused a kerfluffle that closed down the government? It makes no sense.
 
BMCM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think they should go away entirely.
 
I got to wondering while reading this thread just what the Tea Party really stood for. What is their platform, their core beliefs? Is it a movement to ridicule, or one to join?

so, I looked it up. Here is there declared platform:

Ten Core Beliefs of the Modern-Day Tea Party Movement

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
Click to expand...
 
BMCM said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Breaking away and creating a national third party would essentially result in a substantial number of election cycles where both the Republicans and the "Tea Party" Paryt would be relegated to near endangered species status.

While a "Tea Party" Party COULD draw some Democratic voters into their ranks, and would garner some independents, it'd still be fighting the Republican party over a "base" of voters.

The amount of the "base" they'd miss out on that would instead go to Republicans would not be overcome by the amount of additional independents or Democratic leaning votes they could attract. The damage in the split base would doom Republicans and "Tea Party" Party members in any election where both are participating.

Not to mention, making a national "Tea Party" party would be almost impossible based on the very nature of the movement. The Tea Party movement's foundational message is one of fiscal and governmental conservatism. The problem is, for a "national" party, you need to have a stance on Social and Defense issues as well. On this, there is no inherent "standard" as it relates to the tea party movements guiding principles. "Tea Party" types in the North east and those in the South and those in middle america and those out west all may have very different views and thoughts as it relates to these issues.

That's the problem with a "Tea Party" Party. The "Tea Party Movement" only has a "platform" that covers a portion of what actual party platforms need to cover. And there's no "movement wide" agreement when it comes to the other portions of a platform that needs to be decided on.
 
Zyphlin said:


No. Breaking away and creating a national third party would essentially result in a substantial number of election cycles where both the Republicans and the "Tea Party" Paryt would be relegated to near endangered species status.

While a "Tea Party" Party COULD draw some Democratic voters into their ranks, and would garner some independents, it'd still be fighting the Republican party over a "base" of voters.

The amount of the "base" they'd miss out on that would instead go to Republicans would not be overcome by the amount of additional independents or Democratic leaning votes they could attract. The damage in the split base would doom Republicans and "Tea Party" Party members in any election where both are participating.

Not to mention, making a national "Tea Party" party would be almost impossible based on the very nature of the movement. The Tea Party movement's foundational message is one of fiscal and governmental conservatism. The problem is, for a "national" party, you need to have a stance on Social and Defense issues as well. On this, there is no inherent "standard" as it relates to the tea party movements guiding principles. "Tea Party" types in the North east and those in the South and those in middle america and those out west all may have very different views and thoughts as it relates to these issues.

That's the problem with a "Tea Party" Party. The "Tea Party Movement" only has a "platform" that covers a portion of what actual party platforms need to cover. And there's no "movement wide" agreement when it comes to the other portions of a platform that needs to be decided on.
Click to expand...

I think the most practical analysis, though, would predict that the Tea Party would take the very conservative and moderates would join the Republicans. So the Republicans and TPers wouldn't be fighting for the same base against the Democrats. The Democrats would be left with the very liberal. Thus, the Republican party would be the group that most people in the US most closely identified with.

The very conservative and the very liberal are the loudest groups- and of course the most detached from reality- but they're not the most numerous.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Political parties are supposed to be functional not cool.

vasuderatorrent
Click to expand...

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.
 
They shouldn't split from it. They have been infiltrating it and taking over, one election at a time...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom