Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Hypothesis: Rand the Trojan Horse

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 11:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

A true Scotsman would never say such a thing.

Centrists are kind of like Bigfoot, they're everywhere, but never really seem to show up. People get active on the ends of the spectrum, not the middle.

No one is worried that liberals won't appeal to centrists, and centrist Republicans don't have a very good success rate for president. Besides, I bet more than a few self-labeled progressives and libertarians would vote for Rand specifically because he has a fair amount in common with his dad, who many of them loved.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:53:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 11:47:08 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

A true Scotsman would never say such a thing.

)


Centrists are kind of like Bigfoot, they're everywhere, but never really seem to show up. People get active on the ends of the spectrum, not the middle.

No one is worried that liberals won't appeal to centrists, and centrist Republicans don't have a very good success rate for president. Besides, I bet more than a few self-labeled progressives and libertarians would vote for Rand specifically because he has a fair amount in common with his dad, who many of them loved.

I'm a centrist who always votes, though I'm not some kind of political activist, parroting whatever the party has to say. I educate myself and vote accordingly, trying to take an objective POV on the candidates and issues.

I would agree that centrist Republicans generally don't do very well, and that's unfortunate.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:47:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

Ha, hahahaha, oh my. Hahahaha.

You should do stand-up.
storytimewithjesus
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:44:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wonder how effectively libertarian he will actually be once in office. Reagan pretended to be very libertarian, but in practice the only things he was libertarian on were business regulations. Our prison population increased drastically, and we became more interventionist militarily and planted many of the seeds for our future global conflicts by training and equipping militant groups around the world. We didn't even reduce the size and power of regulatory agencies so much as put them under the control of corporate leaders who used them to maintain their status in the economy.

That said, I'd vote for him over almost any Democrat. He and Elizabeth Warren are the only two people I can think of right now who could conceivably win a major party nomination who I'd vote for. Otherwise I'll be giving Gary Johnson another vote.
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

I think he's a much stronger candidate than any of the 2012 conservatives. True libertarians tend to lose both wings of the electorate. Conservatives like a lot of the the small govt, deregulation stuff and then freak out when they find out that also means small military. Liberals likewise step back on the inverse of that dynamic.

Moderates will hang in longer, but a few radical statements can lose a lot of the middle as Rand's father discovered. Rand has demonstrated that he understands moderation and compromise and can win the center (which is more than can be said of W St. A with his cancerous tyrrany comments). Unfortuantely, the center wins you the general election, not the primary. I don't see much that indicates that Fox News or Limbaugh, etc would support Paul and let's face it, Fox News dictates the Republican mainstream's opinion to them. Has Paul burned too many bridges with Coulter and O' Reilly?, etc My guess is yes, but Paul certainly has the capacity to prove me wrong. He has wide appeal to Tea Partyers and perhaps many conservatives would swallow their objections if they thought he had a real shot at beating Clinton.

Rand's father could be his biggest asset in Texas and California, I just wonder if he might not also be his biggest liability. Ron Paul has never been that good at holding his tongue for political gain, after all.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:53:50 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:47:08 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

A true Scotsman would never say such a thing.

)


Centrists are kind of like Bigfoot, they're everywhere, but never really seem to show up. People get active on the ends of the spectrum, not the middle.

No one is worried that liberals won't appeal to centrists, and centrist Republicans don't have a very good success rate for president. Besides, I bet more than a few self-labeled progressives and libertarians would vote for Rand specifically because he has a fair amount in common with his dad, who many of them loved.

I'm a centrist who always votes, though I'm not some kind of political activist, parroting whatever the party has to say. I educate myself and vote accordingly, trying to take an objective POV on the candidates and issues.

I would agree that centrist Republicans generally don't do very well, and that's unfortunate.

So you are the rarer type of centrist who is so because he takes a little from here, and a little from there? My perception of most "centrists" are they are just willfully uneducated on the issues because they don't like the conflict/don't care. They don't understand why people are fighting, so they claim neutrality. Not really centrist or moderate, but they take up that mantle anyway.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:54:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One thing that turned me off about his dad was his following of Anarchists, and their presence in the Libertarian Party. Why do I want them in power? I want smaller government, not NO government.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:16:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:51:30 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/18/2014 7:53:50 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/17/2014 11:47:08 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

A true Scotsman would never say such a thing.

)


Centrists are kind of like Bigfoot, they're everywhere, but never really seem to show up. People get active on the ends of the spectrum, not the middle.

No one is worried that liberals won't appeal to centrists, and centrist Republicans don't have a very good success rate for president. Besides, I bet more than a few self-labeled progressives and libertarians would vote for Rand specifically because he has a fair amount in common with his dad, who many of them loved.

I'm a centrist who always votes, though I'm not some kind of political activist, parroting whatever the party has to say. I educate myself and vote accordingly, trying to take an objective POV on the candidates and issues.

I would agree that centrist Republicans generally don't do very well, and that's unfortunate.

So you are the rarer type of centrist who is so because he takes a little from here, and a little from there? My perception of most "centrists" are they are just willfully uneducated on the issues because they don't like the conflict/don't care. They don't understand why people are fighting, so they claim neutrality. Not really centrist or moderate, but they take up that mantle anyway.

I try to take an objective view on the issues, rather than just getting caught up in the political games and squabbling. In no way would it seem neutrality, but rather a personal effort to elevate the level of discourse away from partisan politics.

I wouldn't say I take a little bit from here and there. I support issues and some of them happen to align with Democrats and others with Republicans, though like most voters have to be content with voting for the lesser evil come election day.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:48:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

That raises an interesting point on the Tea Party. I doesn't do him any favors but doesn't hurt him either. Most people say they are neither a Tea Party supporter nor an opponent, that they are neither. Opponents are likely liberals, but Republicans rarely win liberals and I don't think want to since they were they were clearly smaller than conservatives and moderates by size in the 2012 electorate. I don't think most people look the other way at a Tea Party candidate, but are willing to here their views and consider the candidates they put forward. If the Tea Party is shunned then why did it win in 2010 and why they not lose the House in 2012. While not as active as it was, in 2014 there are some Tea Party candidates out there.

http://www.gallup.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:10:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 10:48:12 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

That raises an interesting point on the Tea Party. I doesn't do him any favors but doesn't hurt him either. Most people say they are neither a Tea Party supporter nor an opponent, that they are neither. Opponents are likely liberals, but Republicans rarely win liberals and I don't think want to since they were they were clearly smaller than conservatives and moderates by size in the 2012 electorate. I don't think most people look the other way at a Tea Party candidate, but are willing to here their views and consider the candidates they put forward. If the Tea Party is shunned then why did it win in 2010 and why they not lose the House in 2012. While not as active as it was, in 2014 there are some Tea Party candidates out there.

http://www.gallup.com...

Independents such as myself are more likely to have an unfavorable view, and such is the case.

They are primarily an ultra-conservative response to the more leftist Democrats that have been emerging. With this ultra-conservative response, you get some nutty politicians.

These are the folks who call Obama the anti-christ, and dismiss Anthropengic Climate Change with pseudoscience. Not to mention their common disbelief of evolution, though this is less likely to have a negative influence on their policies, but indicative of their distrust in the Academic world.

Tea Party Politicians are not sent to Washington to Legislate, but largely to prevent Legislation from moving forward. This isn't 100% the case and I don't think that this is true for Rand Paul, but his affiliation with the Tea Party puts him in danger of losing many independents and Centrists like me. Many Republicans are in a bit of a pickle here though as they will likely lose without the support of the Tea Party, which derives it's power from rural America.

To conclude, I've never seen the Tea Party engaged in a reasonable discussion about our present issues, nor a willingness to work together towards an agreeable solution. Their strategy is to undermine and obstruct dialogue, and the Republicans would do well in overcoming this internal struggle.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:59:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:10:24 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/23/2014 10:48:12 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/16/2014 1:02:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/16/2014 12:51:05 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Rand Paul is publicly appealing to the masses, while privately adhering to hardcore libertarianism. He is the Trojan Horse of political candidates; he will troll us all by unleashing the incomparable power of social and economic liberty. Once inside the presidential office, he will eviscerate every organ of cancerous tyranny that plagues the United States today.

Essentially he is Ron Paul with a fake front, an indignant, benevolent wolf in sheep's clothing.

Discuss.

To my limited knowledge, he basically seems like a slightly less extreme version of his father. Much like what you described, he seems to have tempered his positions a little more cautiously as he has been eyeing for the oval office.

I still think it's a long shot for him, and his affiliation with the tea party doesn't do him any favors with the centrists or liberals.

That raises an interesting point on the Tea Party. I doesn't do him any favors but doesn't hurt him either. Most people say they are neither a Tea Party supporter nor an opponent, that they are neither. Opponents are likely liberals, but Republicans rarely win liberals and I don't think want to since they were they were clearly smaller than conservatives and moderates by size in the 2012 electorate. I don't think most people look the other way at a Tea Party candidate, but are willing to here their views and consider the candidates they put forward. If the Tea Party is shunned then why did it win in 2010 and why they not lose the House in 2012. While not as active as it was, in 2014 there are some Tea Party candidates out there.

http://www.gallup.com...

Independents such as myself are more likely to have an unfavorable view, and such is the case.

If you look at Gallup, you will see 49% of voters are on neither side of opposing it or supporting. Those are the ones in the middle. Liberals are the opposition and conservatives favor the Tea Party.

They are primarily an ultra-conservative response to the more leftist Democrats that have been emerging. With this ultra-conservative response, you get some nutty politicians.

Off course, but if you think of the Tea Party elected governors, senators, and reps are nutty than you would be wrong. Politicians are generally smart people and if you don't think so I will explain more. But if you think most Tea Partiers who are elected are stupid then that would be a mistake.

These are the folks who call Obama the anti-christ, and dismiss Anthropengic Climate Change with pseudoscience. Not to mention their common disbelief of evolution, though this is less likely to have a negative influence on their policies, but indicative of their distrust in the Academic world.

Cause independents never recognize a separation of church and state thus making people's religions views irrelevant. Oh wait.

Tea Party Politicians are not sent to Washington to Legislate, but largely to prevent Legislation from moving forward. This isn't 100% the case and I don't think that this is true for Rand Paul, but his affiliation with the Tea Party puts him in danger of losing many independents and Centrists like me. Many Republicans are in a bit of a pickle here though as they will likely lose without the support of the Tea Party, which derives it's power from rural America.

To conclude, I've never seen the Tea Party engaged in a reasonable discussion about our present issues, nor a willingness to work together towards an agreeable solution. Their strategy is to undermine and obstruct dialogue, and the Republicans would do well in overcoming this internal struggle.

All three paragraphs heer can be refuted by real political analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Internal wars within the GOP have been going on for decades. This is nothing new. Again on the anti-Christ and evolution, no one votes on that but on real issues. Tea Party has been the primary reason the GOP has lost certain race, but also why it has won some as well. There is no doubt here. But there are also races that were won by the Tea Party. Independents are flocking in battleground states to strong Tea Party politicians who have good backgrounds and aren't crazy nut jobs like some people think. They aren't flocking to candidates who are birthers.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:43:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 11:59:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
That raises an interesting point on the Tea Party. I doesn't do him any favors but doesn't hurt him either. Most people say they are neither a Tea Party supporter nor an opponent, that they are neither. Opponents are likely liberals, but Republicans rarely win liberals and I don't think want to since they were they were clearly smaller than conservatives and moderates by size in the 2012 electorate. I don't think most people look the other way at a Tea Party candidate, but are willing to here their views and consider the candidates they put forward. If the Tea Party is shunned then why did it win in 2010 and why they not lose the House in 2012. While not as active as it was, in 2014 there are some Tea Party candidates out there.

http://www.gallup.com...

Independents such as myself are more likely to have an unfavorable view, and such is the case.

If you look at Gallup, you will see 49% of voters are on neither side of opposing it or supporting. Those are the ones in the middle. Liberals are the opposition and conservatives favor the Tea Party.

48% of Independents and 54% of Moderates oppose the Tea Party, or at least hold an unfavorable opinion of it.

This was also prior to the Government Shut Down, so I suppose these figures are likely to have changed.


They are primarily an ultra-conservative response to the more leftist Democrats that have been emerging. With this ultra-conservative response, you get some nutty politicians.

Off course, but if you think of the Tea Party elected governors, senators, and reps are nutty than you would be wrong. Politicians are generally smart people and if you don't think so I will explain more. But if you think most Tea Partiers who are elected are stupid then that would be a mistake.

I think some are rather nutty, such as Sarah Palin and her ilk. Some are simply ignorant, or rather prefer ignorance in order to assert religious dogma.

Note: I am not some kind of anti-religious person.


These are the folks who call Obama the anti-christ, and dismiss Anthropengic Climate Change with pseudoscience. Not to mention their common disbelief of evolution, though this is less likely to have a negative influence on their policies, but indicative of their distrust in the Academic world.

Cause independents never recognize a separation of church and state thus making people's religions views irrelevant. Oh wait.

What are you getting at here?


Tea Party Politicians are not sent to Washington to Legislate, but largely to prevent Legislation from moving forward. This isn't 100% the case and I don't think that this is true for Rand Paul, but his affiliation with the Tea Party puts him in danger of losing many independents and Centrists like me. Many Republicans are in a bit of a pickle here though as they will likely lose without the support of the Tea Party, which derives it's power from rural America.

To conclude, I've never seen the Tea Party engaged in a reasonable discussion about our present issues, nor a willingness to work together towards an agreeable solution. Their strategy is to undermine and obstruct dialogue, and the Republicans would do well in overcoming this internal struggle.

All three paragraphs heer can be refuted by real political analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Internal wars within the GOP have been going on for decades. This is nothing new. Again on the anti-Christ and evolution, no one votes on that but on real issues. Tea Party has been the primary reason the GOP has lost certain race, but also why it has won some as well. There is no doubt here. But there are also races that were won by the Tea Party. Independents are flocking in battleground states to strong Tea Party politicians who have good backgrounds and aren't crazy nut jobs like some people think. They aren't flocking to candidates who are birthers.

1) Nothing in that link changes my opinion.
2) 25% of those polled by Gallup said that it was an indicator of legitimacy or rather illegitimacy should a presidential candidate reject evolution. I personally think it's indicative of one's education and also one's openness to evidence and reasoned arguments. Things that I believe are important for a President.
3) The Tea Party generally is only influential in red states, and there is such strong opposition from the left that increasing their numbers on Capital Hill will likely only ensure increased partisanship. I want reasonable politicians who will have a desire to work together for the good of the people. Not people who are dogmatic and rigid on their ideologies that they cannot work with others. A true Tea Party Politician is unelectable as President. I don't consider Rand Paul a true Tea Party Politician, but I also don't like his odds for being elected.

Regards,
TS
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 12:43:42 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/23/2014 11:59:53 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
That raises an interesting point on the Tea Party. I doesn't do him any favors but doesn't hurt him either. Most people say they are neither a Tea Party supporter nor an opponent, that they are neither. Opponents are likely liberals, but Republicans rarely win liberals and I don't think want to since they were they were clearly smaller than conservatives and moderates by size in the 2012 electorate. I don't think most people look the other way at a Tea Party candidate, but are willing to here their views and consider the candidates they put forward. If the Tea Party is shunned then why did it win in 2010 and why they not lose the House in 2012. While not as active as it was, in 2014 there are some Tea Party candidates out there.

http://www.gallup.com...

Independents such as myself are more likely to have an unfavorable view, and such is the case.

If you look at Gallup, you will see 49% of voters are on neither side of opposing it or supporting. Those are the ones in the middle. Liberals are the opposition and conservatives favor the Tea Party.

48% of Independents and 54% of Moderates oppose the Tea Party, or at least hold an unfavorable opinion of it.

However, just because it is unfavorable does not look at if they actually oppose it or not. They frown upon the Tea Party it seems, but they don't support or oppose it meaning that there is room for the Tea Party to change favorability by the time of election. Anything can happen.

This was also prior to the Government Shut Down, so I suppose these figures are likely to have changed.

They were probably negative then, but the situation may have changed considering the Obamacare website failure and scandals and Ukraine and Middle East.


They are primarily an ultra-conservative response to the more leftist Democrats that have been emerging. With this ultra-conservative response, you get some nutty politicians.

Off course, but if you think of the Tea Party elected governors, senators, and reps are nutty than you would be wrong. Politicians are generally smart people and if you don't think so I will explain more. But if you think most Tea Partiers who are elected are stupid then that would be a mistake.

I think some are rather nutty, such as Sarah Palin and her ilk. Some are simply ignorant, or rather prefer ignorance in order to assert religious dogma.

Note: I am not some kind of anti-religious person.

However it would be wrong to consider that religious beliefs are a negative unless they are clearly represented in a candidate's public policy, which is rare with some exceptions. No doubt someone can see when religion is part of policy, but it is difficult to pass such. Tea Party Republicans like Johnson or Toomey were not running on religious views. Some of their voters just happened to be religious.

Also, when was the last time Sarah Palin ran for anything? I do think she would have had an opportunity in conservative Alaska for the Senate, but she preferred to be an activist. This means that while is a Tea Party darling, she cannot effect policy like elected officials can,


These are the folks who call Obama the anti-christ, and dismiss Anthropengic Climate Change with pseudoscience. Not to mention their common disbelief of evolution, though this is less likely to have a negative influence on their policies, but indicative of their distrust in the Academic world.

Cause independents never recognize a separation of church and state thus making people's religions views irrelevant. Oh wait.

What are you getting at here?

The debate about evolution in a political setting where the most important is public policy, past remarks, corruption and so on is not important whatsoever. I highly doubt anyone vote based on evolution and I am talking about independents in critical states. Yes in Arkansas and Alabama it might be different, but are there really independents there? Not as much as Ohio or New Hampshire or Wisconsin.


Tea Party Politicians are not sent to Washington to Legislate, but largely to prevent Legislation from moving forward. This isn't 100% the case and I don't think that this is true for Rand Paul, but his affiliation with the Tea Party puts him in danger of losing many independents and Centrists like me. Many Republicans are in a bit of a pickle here though as they will likely lose without the support of the Tea Party, which derives it's power from rural America.

To conclude, I've never seen the Tea Party engaged in a reasonable discussion about our present issues, nor a willingness to work together towards an agreeable solution. Their strategy is to undermine and obstruct dialogue, and the Republicans would do well in overcoming this internal struggle.

All three paragraphs heer can be refuted by real political analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Internal wars within the GOP have been going on for decades. This is nothing new. Again on the anti-Christ and evolution, no one votes on that but on real issues. Tea Party has been the primary reason the GOP has lost certain race, but also why it has won some as well. There is no doubt here. But there are also races that were won by the Tea Party. Independents are flocking in battleground states to strong Tea Party politicians who have good backgrounds and aren't crazy nut jobs like some people think. They aren't flocking to candidates who are birthers.

1) Nothing in that link changes my opinion.

It doesn't have to, I'm just showing that truly the Tea Party is an electable force and isn't hurt the GOP as much as people think. If it was then 2010 should have been a landslide defeat for them and so to should have been 2012 (at least in the House).
2) 25% of those polled by Gallup said that it was an indicator of legitimacy or rather illegitimacy should a presidential candidate reject evolution. I personally think it's indicative of one's education and also one's openness to evidence and reasoned arguments. Things that I believe are important for a President.

You know 25% of those voters is not something as significant as 40% or 45% or a majority. 25% of voters is most likely made out of liberals with few independents and it is only independents just remember 75% don't. It is nothing critical here and just helps my point that no majority of people care about the evolution debate. They care about how the economy is doing, or their son or husband in Afghanistan, or how well their retirement is going to be.

3) The Tea Party generally is only influential in red states, and there is such strong opposition from the left that increasing their numbers on Capital Hill will likely only ensure increased partisanship. I want reasonable politicians who will have a desire to work together for the good of the people. Not people who are dogmatic and rigid on their ideologies that they cannot work with others.

The in that case Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, David Brat, and Tea Party favored candidates should not have won their elections or even their primaries in battleground states while Tommy Thompson, Dino Rossi, and other more or less moderate Republicans should have been elected.

A true Tea Party Politician is unelectable as President. I don't consider Rand Paul a true Tea Party Politician, but I also don't like his odds for being elected.

Regards,
TS

Then what is a true Tea Party candidate. If Rand Paul isn't a real Tea Party politician then why does the Tea Party love him so much. Who are these clearly conservative candidates winning in independent areas that are Tea Party politicians and t
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...