the tea [p]arty

[gumOnShoe]

Perhaps its just the play on words going on, but it seams to me that the Tea Party movement, ought to just become the Tea ^Party^

They have their own ideals and own desires and they are at odds with a majority of the leaders of both parties. They are already organized. They have an agenda, and all they need now are leaders from within their own movement.

Mayhaps, this is the closest thing to a viable 3rd party in recent years in U.S. politics.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't vote for them, but it does seem more appropriate.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/30/09 11:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Thoughts?

I wouldn't vote for them, but it does seem more appropriate.

;;;
The more I learn about American Politicians, the more outraged I become.
SICKO, was a real eye opener for me.
The lobby groups here in Canada are bad enough, but to have a lobby group in the US which pushes just to keep a Universal Health Care system from happening, which has 4 times as many people working at lobbying the Government, than there are elected officials... well that's fucking obscene, IMO, & I can't for the life of me see why it isn't illegal !
The Drug Industry is another sweetheart you've got !
Bush's Prescription drug modernization act, has 250 dollar deductibles for Seniors...WTF... my deductible is $10.00 ! BECAUSE I WORK
My family members who are Seniors ge their drugs for free or for a minimum charge/deductible of less than 10 dollars.
Seniors who have spent their lives working in their country deserve to be treated better.
If Any Party formed in Canada, with the expreess interest of protecting & advancing free health care & cheaper or free drugs for our poor , & Senior people, I wouldn't just vote for them...I'd join the Party & see what I could do to help ! ! !
You've really got to start looking at the ME against them mentality you've got down there & start thinking about "I" & "WE " what I can/ or WE can do , how WE or I ,can help others & in so doing ...help ourselves & you really really reallly have to start holding elected officials accountable & not allow them to receive a nickle from any lobbiest for anything. Plus make it illegal for them to work for a Company that has lobbiest for say 5 years after they leave office. Because the guy who made it his mission to get the Medicare modernizartion act passed, left Government right after for a 2 million dollar a year posititon plus expenses with one of the largest Drug Companies in America !

And that's fucked up !

You need at least 3 Parties...IMO, 4+ would be better .

[Ericho]

Uh, wow, that's an interesting and original idea, so I have to give you credit for that, but what do you mean by the name [P]Arty? Are you saying that you're striving for a tea arty? I don't see what that has to do with anything, but then again, maybe you were just being silly.

[gumOnShoe]

At 10/30/09 11:48 AM, Ericho wrote: Uh, wow, that's an interesting and original idea, so I have to give you credit for that, but what do you mean by the name [P]Arty? Are you saying that you're striving for a tea arty? I don't see what that has to do with anything, but then again, maybe you were just being silly.

NO, no no. The movement itself is called the Tea Party after the Boston Tea Party, but it isn't an actual Political Party. I'm just trying to emphasize that this should be the Tea (Political) Party when you say Tea Party. I put the brackets around the P to emphasize that this was a Party and not a party, if you understand my meaning.

[Dilapsor]

The possibility for a Tea Party isn't entirely implausible. Perhaps I'm naive but what I've noticed is that the majority of them are people who fall somewhere between libertarian and republican but would typically vote republican simply because voting for a 3rd party is generally considered by most to be "throwing your vote away". If a viable 3rd party were to arise from the recent movement, I'm under the impression that it would simply split the republican vote, which would spell doom for both libertarians and republicans. It would be an even greater division of votes if the hypothetical "Conservative Party" came about too.

I understand that there are a lot of democrats who are getting on board with the tea party movement, but far more of them seem to be disillusioned and disenfranchised republicans. This is why I've been a little puzzled why conservative commentators who until recently have been mouthpieces have been pushing for hypothetical third parties (conservative, tea, etc.) when at the national level such a division would be suicidal against the relative solidarity of the democratic party. Like I said, I may be naive or misinformed, but it would make a helluva lot more sense for the republicans to embrace the libertarians rather than vice versa simply because the republican party has a larger voter base to work with.

[dySWN]

At 10/30/09 11:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/30/09 11:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

The more I learn about American Politicians, the more outraged I become.
SICKO, was a real eye opener for me.

You do realize that Michael Moore is not exactly an unbiased representative of the state of American politics, right?

[SadisticMonkey]

Libertarian party FTW

[pr0ded]

they will fail, and hopefully they will die out. and hopefully they form a party to waste their time

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/31/09 05:15 AM, pr0ded wrote: they will fail, and hopefully they will die out. and hopefully they form a party to waste their time

fuck you're retarded.

[pr0ded]

reverse engineer my maxmsp patches tard, then remember how your precious RP got barred from debates. theres the fail

[morefngdbs]

At 10/31/09 03:43 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/30/09 11:47 AM, morefngdbs wrote: SICKO, was a real eye opener for me.

You do realize that Michael Moore is not exactly an unbiased representative of the state of American politics, right?

;;;
Absolutely...he's not even much of a film maker...& I work in the business, so I am used to how shows are put together. But his portrayal of Canadian Health care was right on the money. I have friends & co workers who are from England , one is on the executive of BECTU & his portrayal of how the British are treated is on the mark as well. I would like to have frst hand proof about France..but the only part of France I've ever ben is St. Pierre & Miquelon ...off the south coast of Newfoundland )
Seeing Americans being denied treatment, so Insurance companies can post higher profit's was as sickening a specticle as I have ever witnessed...especially the first part where that guy has to choose which finger(s) they will reattach, because he doesn't have enough to pay for all of them ! ! !
I was in a similar situation where I had almost severed my left ring finger (top 1/3rd) & the saw had stopped in my index finger through bone, & they fixed me up here in Canada, no charge, & when I arrived in the Emerg...I didn't wait for anything , I was triaged while being pushed into an operating room . To have to "phone" or get permission for a doctor to work on you from an insurance company...that's insane !

That you as American's would even put up with such a system...is insanity on a much larger scale IMO !

[pr0ded]

how about his portrayal of cuban healthcare, or his claim that cubans live longer than americans if i remember

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

This third ^party^ has the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the American people.

All they need now is a lot of money, then I think they can do it before 2012.

[CloudEater]

What is the Tea [p]arty Movement???
and you spelt seems 'seams'.....

[morefngdbs]

At 10/31/09 09:12 AM, pr0ded wrote: how about his portrayal of cuban healthcare, or his claim that cubans live longer than americans if i remember

;;;
As I said about France...I have no idea how it is in France , as for Cuba I haven't been there either. But I have been to other countries in the Caribbean like the Dominican Republic, which has doctor's who are trained in Canada, usually at the Dalhousie University school of Medicine. THey have a very good system in the D.R. & well trained staff.
My comparissons are on what I know & what I seen portrayed on Sicko & what I've learned from American Coworkers ( I belong to the IATSE which had its starts in the US), not too mention a thread here a couple of months ago by a Newgrounds MOD who faces serious problems due to his denial by the American Health System ! ! !

[Ericho]

At 10/30/09 11:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: NO, no no. The movement itself is called the Tea Party after the Boston Tea Party, but it isn't an actual Political Party. I'm just trying to emphasize that this should be the Tea (Political) Party when you say Tea Party. I put the brackets around the P to emphasize that this was a Party and not a party, if you understand my meaning.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Usually, when I see brackets being used, it's too show that something is different from what would be said as the rest of the word which would normally make a distinction on its own, or something added to a quote to specify something. Yes, I'm that much of a grammar nerd.

[ohbombuh]

I don't like the concept of political parties. I think we should go with George Washington's model: A single person stands for their own values, so there's no conflict with "official" party values and what the person thinks.

[JohnnyWang]

At 10/30/09 11:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mayhaps, this is the closest thing to a viable 3rd party in recent years in U.S. politics.

The protests against the War in Iraq were bigger than the tea party protests, and a goood portion of those participating in the TP's were republicans.

So yeah, no more a viable third party than any other political movement. US is a two-party system, where the two parties are really just two flavours of the same economic and military policies. For the rest of the world, the only difference between who's in power is the justification they use when they start bombing some place again.,

[Ericho]

At 10/31/09 04:49 PM, ohbombuh wrote: I don't like the concept of political parties. I think we should go with George Washington's model: A single person stands for their own values, so there's no conflict with "official" party values and what the person thinks.

That's an interesting idea, but how would we hold elections? Would it be narrowed down to just two people who would stand alone in political parties? I guess that could work out in theory, but it still sounds like there's some problems.

[TheStonePilot]

At 10/31/09 04:49 PM, ohbombuh wrote: I don't like the concept of political parties. I think we should go with George Washington's model: A single person stands for their own values, so there's no conflict with "official" party values and what the person thinks.

This. How many times have you hated on an electoral candidate just because they were of the opposing party? A party-less political system would let candidates stand on their own beliefs and convictions, and allow a fair ground for all voters. Plus we might actually get something done in Congress, instead of two parties going 'no u did dis'.
Voting would be simple: You vote for all the candidates. You get a tie between the two top candidates and you narrow the voting down to just them.

[BrianEtrius]

At 11/1/09 12:30 PM, TheStonePilot wrote: This. How many times have you hated on an electoral candidate just because they were of the opposing party? A party-less political system would let candidates stand on their own beliefs and convictions, and allow a fair ground for all voters. Plus we might actually get something done in Congress, instead of two parties going 'no u did dis'.
Voting would be simple: You vote for all the candidates. You get a tie between the two top candidates and you narrow the voting down to just them.

The problem with this system is there will be too many different candidates running on too many different platforms. You'll have people who will only run on specific issues and not a general picture. Thus, long story short, we'll have a President who will most likely only get 1 thing done and not a wide general spectrum, which is something a country like the United States needs.

Fact of the matter is, no matter who gets elected, there'll be people who don't like it. That's the one constant in a democracy. Someone always loses.

Also, it's natural for people of common interest to join together. That's how society was basically created. Thus, why not have it for political parties? It's really the same matter.

But now I'm going slightly off topic and I'm sure Gum would want this is go back on track.

[kraor024]

At 10/30/09 11:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: NO, no no. The movement itself is called the Tea Party after the Boston Tea Party, but it isn't an actual Political Party. I'm just trying to emphasize that this should be the Tea (Political) Party when you say Tea Party. I put the brackets around the P to emphasize that this was a Party and not a party, if you understand my meaning.

The tea party actually is a political party, they split from the Libertarian party, in 06.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 11/1/09 02:32 PM, kraor024 wrote:

At 10/30/09 11:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: NO, no no. The movement itself is called the Tea Party after the Boston Tea Party, but it isn't an actual Political Party. I'm just trying to emphasize that this should be the Tea (Political) Party when you say Tea Party. I put the brackets around the P to emphasize that this was a Party and not a party, if you understand my meaning.

The tea party actually is a political party, they split from the Libertarian party, in 06.

Dissent among dissenters, huh.

I'm going to rebuff what I said earlier; a third party is gonna need A LOT of money in order to succeed.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/30/09 07:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: that seems like a great idea, they've already got my vote. MoarEffingBS doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why don't you back that up with something instead of just dismissing the guy? Since a lot of what he said looks bang on correct to me, and I doubt it would be hard to try and counter his sources if he truly is full of it or making things up :)

[Korriken]

At 11/1/09 08:31 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

I'm going to rebuff what I said earlier; a third party is gonna need A LOT of money in order to succeed.

not necessarily. a third party can actually be used to influence one of the main parties, like we see in New York. when the republicans nominate a liberal, the conservative party kicks in and puts out a conservative. if there was such a party in every state, the republican party could be forced to nominate conservatives, because the split would ensure that they do NOT get elected.

This works well at the local level.

Also, this is funny as hell. Dede Scozzafava (republican.. well RINO.) drops from the race and endorse Bill Owens(Democrat).... that should send a shiver up the spine of every liberal republican, now they're all gonna be looked at with a suspicious eye.

[aviewaskewed]

While I'm in favor of third parties another thing that hampers them from getting elected is situations where they are plants by the powerful machine of one party over another. It came out over the weekend here in Jersey that Independent candidate Chris Daggett is being funded by the Democratic Party in Jersey. They know the election will be close, they know Corzine can't get "swing voters" with his record, so now they've got Daggett out there as a spoiler candidate to take votes away and help Corzine sneak by into another term.

So somethimes, a third party can be worse then the big two...because they put out a lacky of the big two.

[BlacklistBurned]

In the end, I believe the core issue with the problems in the American political scene has very little to do with parties / party lines / bi-partisanship / [insert party-related term here] etc., but rather with the mindset of the incumbent politicians in Washington, regardless of political affiliation, and a blatant disregard for the nation's laws. Parties are the inevitable result of human nature. The 'birds of a feather' mentality will always lead people to organize and identify themselves as members of a certain school, belief, or demographic. This is not a bad thing. Parties provide clearly defined choices and help smooth the electoral process with their internal infrastructures.

The issue lies with the shared aristocratic and egotistical nature of those who now sit in Washington, claiming to act on the people's behalf. They seem to have some strange sense of entitlement to their positions. They are so self-centered and focused on their own agendas and pet-projects, they fail to listen to the people they represent and blatantly disregard the laws that bind their actions as set forth in the Constitution.

To these people, the Constitution is a tedious, antiquated, and inconvenient document they would rather sweep under the rug and forget about. They do this because they know that any honest man can read the Constitution and see how far the Federal Government has strayed from it. It lays out a very strict list of powers that Feds can wield and leaves no room to expand on them without a full amendment. In fact, any powers not granted to the federal-level are automatically state-level powers and cannot be infringed upon by federal government.

This fact alone calls into question legislation that has been passed through Congress in the last few decades, including setting national smoking and drinking ages, and the current administration's recent attempts at enforcing nation-wide medical insurance standard. Such legislation is unconstitutional and should never even become the subject of debate. Each individual State has the power to legislate its own requirements, and by Constitutional law, such actions are legal. Other controversial issues such as gay rights, legalization of marijuana, and abortion also fall under state - not federal- jurisdiction.

In short, the Federal govenment has been slowly eating up state's rights without the consent of the sates via the proper amendment process, pulling the important decisions out of the peoples' grasp and into their power-hungry claws. This trend will not change until we put men and women in Washington who understand and embrace both the powers and limits of the Constitution, and whose true motives are to listen to and serve the people who sent them. Only then will there be the United States of America, and not the Federated Provinces of Washington D.C..