Fast forward to 1:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=277&v=qcgPyKt-ysY
Full transcript (https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/pelosi-i-dont-see-anything-inappropriate-in-rigging-primaries-641ac1bb70c8)
Not surprised in the least, but I have no doubt, the gop'E does the same thing every election, they are, after all, cut from the same burka.
Quote from: Solar on May 15, 2018, 08:19:33 PM
Not surprised in the least, but I have no doubt, the gop'E does the same thing every election, they are, after all, cut from the same burka.
You can bet the GOPe is out there doing the exact same thing against conservative candidates as the DNC is doing against "progressive" democrats. (Is there any other kind?)
But, I have to say that there is a difference between stating that the party leadership/infrastructure is backing a particular candidate for the primaries, and outright rigging an election. The party leadership has every authority to choose whom to back. Telling a challenger "We're backing so-and-so" is, IMO, not "rigging."
That said, the democratic presidential primaries were, indeed, rigged.
Quote from: zewazir on May 15, 2018, 09:02:15 PM
You can bet the GOPe is out there doing the exact same thing against conservative candidates as the DNC is doing against "progressive" democrats. (Is there any other kind?)
But, I have to say that there is a difference between stating that the party leadership/infrastructure is backing a particular candidate for the primaries, and outright rigging an election. The party leadership has every authority to choose whom to back. Telling a challenger "We're backing so-and-so" is, IMO, not "rigging."
That said, the democratic presidential primaries were, indeed, rigged.
That was my thought exactly, that they were doing their damnedest to keep TEA out as we've witnessed in several elections.
It was never for party or the people, it was to retain power for the leftist status quo.
Quote from: Solar on May 15, 2018, 08:19:33 PM
Not surprised in the least, but I have no doubt, the gop'E does the same thing every election, they are, after all, cut from the same burka.
Then we NEED a voter fraud commision to put an end to these shenanegins. Didnt trump close his down?
Out here in nebraska we dont need voter fraud because our rinos run unopposed (jeff fortenberry)
Quote from: T Hunt on May 16, 2018, 07:19:56 AM
Then we NEED a voter fraud commision to put an end to these shenanegins. Didnt trump close his down?
Out here in nebraska we dont need voter fraud because our rinos run unopposed (jeff fortenberry)
Technically, it is voter fraud, but sadly people had become accustomed to party politics.
This is why TEA came on strong in an effort to purge the gop'E of the leftists.
Quote from: T Hunt on May 16, 2018, 07:19:56 AM
Then we NEED a voter fraud commision to put an end to these shenanegins. Didnt trump close his down?
Out here in nebraska we dont need voter fraud because our rinos run unopposed (jeff fortenberry)
With all due respect another government commission will never solve anything. Te GOP must accept the democrats will always try to rig elections. How do you fight it? Hire a bunch of Lee Atwater clones and turn them loose.
Quote from: Solar on May 16, 2018, 05:46:16 AM
That was my thought exactly, that they were doing their damnedest to keep TEA out as we've witnessed in several elections.
It was never for party or the people, it was to retain power for the leftist status quo.
-------------------------------------------------
On the mark!
Repeating, our only Principled National Conservative Party was the Southern
Agrarian & Rural Democrats of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
John Calhoun, among many dozens; unfortunately fatally tarred by slavery.
The GOP, developed from the northern mercantile class later morphing into the
party of Big Business and Crony Capitalism; having absolutely nothing to do
w/Principled Conservatism; the political heritage of Ancient Greece and Rome.
Quote from: Walter Josh on May 16, 2018, 12:32:23 PM
-------------------------------------------------
On the mark!
Repeating, our only Principled National Conservative Party was the Southern
Agrarian & Rural Democrats of Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
John Calhoun, among many dozens; unfortunately fatally tarred by slavery.
The GOP, developed from the northern mercantile class later morphing into the
party of Big Business and Crony Capitalism; having absolutely nothing to do
w/Principled Conservatism; the political heritage of Ancient Greece and Rome.
You missed an interesting exchange. Starting around reply #6 give or take a reply or two.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/history-of-the-rino
Quote from: Solar on May 16, 2018, 12:38:55 PM
You missed an interesting exchange. Starting around reply #6 give or take a reply or two.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/history-of-the-rino
-------------------------------------
Solar, indeed.
The Tea Party is a life raft for those adrift in a Swamp of Despair and Incompetence!!!
Quote from: Walter Josh on May 16, 2018, 03:40:45 PM
-------------------------------------
Solar, indeed.
The Tea Party is a life raft for those adrift in a Swamp of Despair and Incompetence!!!
Well stated.
What is interesting about this is the democrats have won some elections recently (remember the blue wave?) And this candidates ran on a Trump platform. Yesterday the farthest of the far left won their primaries.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 16, 2018, 06:20:56 PM
What is interesting about this is the democrats have won some elections recently (remember the blue wave?) And this candidates ran on a Trump platform. Yesterday the farthest of the far left won their primaries.
And the farthest from the left is going to be "The blue wave"? :lol: :lol: :lol: Even when the dims tried to pick the winner in the primaries, the radical left won. That's all they have left in their voter base. We know the dim party is dead, hope the midterms bury it and get rid of the stink. Should help fire up the election.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but this conversation was not revealing any criminal activity, or election fraud. What Rep. Hoyer described is exactly how all the Political Action Committees (like the NRA, AARP, NASE, DCCC, etc., etc.) operate.
The contributions from the members of the PAC are spent on candidates that support their agenda. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) that political contributions by corporations (like the DCCC) is "free speech" and protected by the First Amendment.
As a NRA Life Member and member of the NASE, I make regular contributions so that these PACs will help me pursue my political agenda. I am also a member of the Alaska NRA-ILA Steering Committee, and I work locally to ensure the Second Amendment is not being infringed. My political contributions allow me to have a say in other venues, beyond Alaska.
If you want an example of Democrats actually rigging an election, I refer you to the 2016 recount that Jill Stein started. In Detroit, Michigan, none of the official ballot counts (tallied by State employees) matched the actual votes from the sealed ballot bags from any of the districts. They were all inflated in Hillary's favor. Now THAT is real systemic Democrat election fraud. Which we would never had known about had it not been for Stein's recount.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 17, 2018, 01:15:04 AM
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but this conversation was not revealing any criminal activity, or election fraud. What Rep. Hoyer described is exactly how all the Political Action Committees (like the NRA, AARP, NASE, DCCC, etc., etc.) operate.
The contributions from the members of the PAC are spent on candidates that support their agenda. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) that political contributions by corporations (like the DCCC) is "free speech" and protected by the First Amendment.
As a NRA Life Member and member of the NASE, I make regular contributions so that these PACs will help me pursue my political agenda. I am also a member of the Alaska NRA-ILA Steering Committee, and I work locally to ensure the Second Amendment is not being infringed. My political contributions allow me to have a say in other venues, beyond Alaska.
If you want an example of Democrats actually rigging an election, I refer you to the 2016 recount that Jill Stein started. In Detroit, Michigan, none of the official ballot counts (tallied by State employees) matched the actual votes from the sealed ballot bags from any of the districts. They were all inflated in Hillary's favor. Now THAT is real systemic Democrat election fraud. Which we would never had known about had it not been for Stein's recount.
Criminal? No. Ethically and morally wrong? Yes.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 17, 2018, 05:21:23 PM
Criminal? No. Ethically and morally wrong? Yes.
What is ethically or morally wrong about supporting a political organization that shares your agenda? Or don't you believe in freedom of speech?
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 08:08:42 AM
What is ethically or morally wrong about supporting a political organization that shares your agenda? Or don't you believe in freedom of speech?
The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 05:20:51 PM
The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.
I don't know what country you are referring to, but that has never been the way it works in the US. Money has always been part of politics in the US, and it is neither unethical or immoral. It is called free speech and free association, which has been protected by the US Constitution since at least 1791.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 06:12:25 PM
I don't know what country you are referring to, but that has never been the way it works in the US. Money has always been party of politics in the US, and it is neither unethical or immoral. It is called free speech and free association, which has been protected by the US Constitution since at least 1791.
:lol: :lol:
Okay.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 05:20:51 PM
The voters are supposed to decide. Not a few party insiders.
And how do the voters decide? Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?
The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck. Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.
Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 07:09:34 PM
And how do the voters decide? Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?
The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck. Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.
That is exactly right. When I was running my business I did not have the time to devote to national issues that concerned me and my business. However, by joining the National Association for the Self-Employed I had a lobbyist advocating for me in DC. I am also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment and for that reason I make regular contributions to the NRA so that they may challenge the constitutionality of local, State, and federal laws when they infringe on that amendment. They also give money to State and national candidates that support the Second Amendment. I'm not able to be in hundred different places at the same time, but with my contributions to various PACs I can. If I relied on just my vote, nothing would ever get done.
Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 07:09:34 PM
And how do the voters decide? Just blithely walk into a booth and punch down a few hanging chads?
The voters need information. Information comes by way of means which cost money. People contribute to their favorite candidates so the candidate can get their message out. People also group together in various types of political organizations so their contributions can achieve the most bang for their buck. Those organizations choose a candidate to support; they do not support them all equally. There is nothing wrong with that - even when the support comes from the party national committees, which are the largest of political organizations.
They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:31:02 PM
They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.
Rep. Hoyer can ask anything he wants. Whether or not the other guy accepts what Rep. Hoyer has to say is another story. Judging by the recording, it did not sound like the candidate was very interested in heeding Rep. Hoyer's advice. Keep in mind that the candidate is also a Democrat, just like Rep. Hoyer. Had Rep. Hoyer attempted to put the same political pressure on a Republican candidate, guess what the response would be. :ttoung:
There are a lot of candidates that will ignore the pressure put on them by PACs. They typically don't win, but at least they stood up against the pressure. It could be, and has been, much worse in US politics than just political pressure.
That reminds me of a candidate we had not long ago running against Sen. Murkowski. All the PACs and even the Alaskan GOP were telling him to withdraw because he couldn't win. However, Joe Miller beat Sen. Murkowski in the GOP Primary. Which removed her from the State ballot. She was forced to run as a write-in candidate because Joe Miller ignored the political pressure being put on him. He still lost the election, but he stood against the political pressure - and it was considerable.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 07:42:13 PM
Rep. Hoyer can ask anything he wants. Whether or not the other guy accepts what Rep. Hoyer has to say is another story. Judging by the recording, it did not sound like the candidate was very interested in heeding Rep. Hoyer's advice. Keep in mind that the candidate is also a Democrat, just like Rep. Hoyer. Had Rep. Hoyer attempted to put the same political pressure on a Republican candidate, guess what the response would be. :ttoung:
There are a lot of candidates that will ignore the pressure put on them by PACs. They typically don't win, but at least they stood up against the pressure. It could be, and has been, much worse in US politics than just political pressure.
Yes, a republican sitting down with Hoyer is plausible. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:31:02 PM
They vote. If you have no problem with the second most powerful person in the House minority telling a candidate give up now because we are going to bury you then you are truly f**ked. Just bend over.
If the MANNER in which the message was sent is what bother's you, I'd say unbunch the undies. The fact that they felt it necessary to send in the "big gun" to tell a no-name upstart to back down just demonstrates to me the dems are a gnat's eyebrow from full-on panic. And people in a panic do not think straight - not even the smart ones. That's good for our side.
But the bottom line is the support of one candidate over another in primary elections is not only nothing new, there is also nothing wrong. The party national committee's main function is to select candidates that can win in the general election. And to do so, they have to choose who gets the cash in the primaries, and who get a red tag in their locker. All normal, and (surprisingly, this time) above-the-board behavior. When it comes to the content of the message, if they can get their candidate in without a long- expensive, mud-slinging primary, they'll be the stronger in the general. And that is plain smart strategy.
Being progs, most will end up toeing the line to the DNC, in the hopes of being given the official nod the next time. (or the next, or next, etc.) Progs are, after all, fully indoctrinated into the ruler/follower system whether they enter politics or not.
OTOH, they don't HAVE to capitulate; as has been proven by a number of TEA sponsored candidates who told the RNC to upstick it edgewise when told they did not have a chance against the party selection.
Funny thing: when the TEA candidate won the primary, they ended up with all kinds of RNC cash during the general campaign, even after a lot of blustering they wouldn't get a thin.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 18, 2018, 07:48:36 PM
Yes, a republican sitting down with Hoyer is plausible. :rolleyes:
I can think of several republicans who would think nothing of having a sit-down with Hoyer.
Quote from: zewazir on May 18, 2018, 10:56:30 PM
I can think of several republicans who would think nothing of having a sit-down with Hoyer.
Discussing a campaign?
I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants.
The gop'E has been fucking us for decades, which is why we're in the mess we're in. Remember how the party fucked Cruz?
OK, this was one of those unique times when they actually screwed themselves and wound up giving us trump, a guy they feared less than Cruz.
I was livid but wasn't the least bit surprised, this is party politics, the RNC has the money that buys and kills candidates and they were very afraid of a principled candidate that would more than likely disrupt their money machine.
AS bad as the machine is, they totally screwed themselves, they helped put a man in office that played their own game against them, that was pure genius, and now that he's in he's taking down not only the Dim corruption but the Establishment as well, then again, there is no line of delineation between the two so-called party's, they both operate towards a leftist goal.
Boo has a solid point, I don't know why anyone would argue against it unless you liked the status quo of the gop'E continuing a leftward move.
Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment.
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 05:38:40 AM
I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants.
The gop'E has been fucking us for decades, which is why we're in the mess we're in. Remember how the party fucked Cruz?
OK, this was one of those unique times when they actually screwed themselves and wound up giving us trump, a guy they feared less than Cruz.
I was livid but wasn't the least bit surprised, this is party politics, the RNC has the money that buys and kills candidates and they were very afraid of a principled candidate that would more than likely disrupt their money machine.
AS bad as the machine is, they totally screwed themselves, they helped put a man in office that played their own game against them, that was pure genius, and now that he's in he's taking down not only the Dim corruption but the Establishment as well, then again, there is no line of delineation between the two so-called party's, they both operate towards a leftist goal.
Boo has a solid point, I don't know why anyone would argue against it unless you liked the status quo of the gop'E continuing a leftward move.
Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment.
The party national parties have become so powerful in overall politics because we, the voters, have been letting them do our jobs for us. OTOH, as I have pointed out, the establishment machine can, and has been put back in its place by active voters. Ultimately the final say still belongs with the voter, NOT the party machine,
IF the voter bothers to get out there and actually participate. The numbers of TEA supported congress critters put in over the GOPe's picks is proof enough of that.
The system has most assuredly been corrupted. But that does not make the system itself a bad thing; any more than the obvious corruption of the Republic makes the Republic a bad thing. It is an unfortunate, but very real, very necessary fact that political campaigning involves massive amounts of money. The national committees have massive amounts of money. The people, as individuals, do not. (with the exception of a very few.)
The Citizens United decision was a very important one, because it did go a significant distance in evening the playing field again. For a long time, the party national committees did hold a vastly unbalanced degree of power, because the People were severely limited in what they could do to support a candidate, while the national committees could throw what ever assents they wanted at any particular race. The demoncrap side is even worse because while they had shut down the ability of the people to organize large organizations with associated large amounts of campaign funding, they had arranged so unions and other socialist bent groups could toss all their cash and influence in the mix, unfettered by anti-constitutional regulation.
That no longer holds true. With the Citizens United decision in place, the People have the freedom to associate as they wish, and use the power behind those associations to support the candidates they desire. Again, the successes of TEA in getting non-establishment candidates nominated is proof it can work.
Tillemann does not HAVE to capitulate to Hoyer's demands; again showing that the party committees do NOT have the "final say" in who gets the nomination, despite their enormous influence. Hoyer is, of course, pushing undesirable candidates to drop their bid because expensive, contested primaries can end up harming the nominee in the general election. But in the end, any decision to capitulate or defy Hoyer's less-than-politic "suggestion" is up to Tellemann, and those who support him. I hope Tillemann ends up telling Hoyer to pound sand.
One last point: the national committees have their vast amount of cash because the People give it to them. They do nothing to generate their funding themselves. The People, and any organizations of the People, can end that simply by refusing to give to party coffers, and instead give directly to the campaigns of those candidates they desire. OF course the socialist unions and such will continue to pump their funds into the DNC. But that is their CHOICE - to give away their voice to their political masters. That still does not make the system itself a bad thing.
Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 07:57:00 AM
The party national parties have become so powerful in overall politics because we, the voters, have been letting them do our jobs for us. OTOH, as I have pointed out, the establishment machine can, and has been put back in its place by active voters. Ultimately the final say still belongs with the voter, NOT the party machine, IF the voter bothers to get out there and actually participate. The numbers of TEA supported congress critters put in over the GOPe's picks is proof enough of that.
The system has most assuredly been corrupted. But that does not make the system itself a bad thing; any more than the obvious corruption of the Republic makes the Republic a bad thing. It is an unfortunate, but very real, very necessary fact that political campaigning involves massive amounts of money. The national committees have massive amounts of money. The people, as individuals, do not. (with the exception of a very few.)
The Citizens United decision was a very important one, because it did go a significant distance in evening the playing field again. For a long time, the party national committees did hold a vastly unbalanced degree of power, because the People were severely limited in what they could do to support a candidate, while the national committees could throw what ever assents they wanted at any particular race. The demoncrap side is even worse because while they had shut down the ability of the people to organize large organizations with associated large amounts of campaign funding, they had arranged so unions and other socialist bent groups could toss all their cash and influence in the mix, unfettered by anti-constitutional regulation.
That no longer holds true. With the Citizens United decision in place, the People have the freedom to associate as they wish, and use the power behind those associations to support the candidates they desire. Again, the successes of TEA in getting non-establishment candidates nominated is proof it can work.
Tillemann does not HAVE to capitulate to Hoyer's demands; again showing that the party committees do NOT have the "final say" in who gets the nomination, despite their enormous influence. Hoyer is, of course, pushing undesirable candidates to drop their bid because expensive, contested primaries can end up harming the nominee in the general election. But in the end, any decision to capitulate or defy Hoyer's less-than-politic "suggestion" is up to Tellemann, and those who support him. I hope Tillemann ends up telling Hoyer to pound sand.
One last point: the national committees have their vast amount of cash because the People give it to them. They do nothing to generate their funding themselves. The People, and any organizations of the People, can end that simply by refusing to give to party coffers, and instead give directly to the campaigns of those candidates they desire. OF course the socialist unions and such will continue to pump their funds into the DNC. But that is their CHOICE - to give away their voice to their political masters. That still does not make the system itself a bad thing.
Your point? Nothing you said refuted any point I made, or were you just reiterating what I said in more detail?
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 09:11:05 AM
Your point? Nothing you said refuted any point I made, or were you just reiterating what I said in more detail?
Point one:
No, the national committees do NOT have the final say in who can run for office in the primaries.Proof: TEA has had multiple successes installing our candidates over the establishment picks. Tillemann does not HAVE to knuckle under to Hoyer.
Point two:
The authority the national committees have is invested in their financial power. The people also have control over that. ie: don't want the RNC to have too much power, don't contribute to them. DNC gets a significant portion of their financial backing from unions, which is why Citizens United was such an important decision in favor of the People's rights.
Point three:
While the system has been undoubtedly corrupted, it is not the system itself at fault.The People have allowed the current situation in which the party committees have undue influence over whom we are "allowed" to vote for. That does not mean the system itself is a bad system. Organizations formed for the purpose of promoting particular political interests are integral to a constitutional republic, which itself is based on representative authority. So when a particular agency uses their influence (most often in the form of financial support) to back one candidate over another, it is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.
Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 10:47:19 AM
Point one: No, the national committees do NOT have the final say in who can run for office in the primaries.
Proof: TEA has had multiple successes installing our candidates over the establishment picks. Tillemann does not HAVE to knuckle under to Hoyer.
Point two: The authority the national committees have is invested in their financial power.
The people also have control over that. ie: don't want the RNC to have too much power, don't contribute to them. DNC gets a significant portion of their financial backing from unions, which is why Citizens United was such an important decision in favor of the People's rights.
Point three: While the system has been undoubtedly corrupted, it is not the system itself at fault.
The People have allowed the current situation in which the party committees have undue influence over whom we are "allowed" to vote for. That does not mean the system itself is a bad system. Organizations formed for the purpose of promoting particular political interests are integral to a constitutional republic, which itself is based on representative authority. So when a particular agency uses their influence (most often in the form of financial support) to back one candidate over another, it is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.
Agree, I never stated otherwise.
My point was, regardless of what we want, once in office, they do as they please. I never said before, because we have say at County level who gets in the party.
We also have control after the fact as in a final say at the ballot box. My point is we've allowed the Establishment to corrupt the system and all within the law.
Our problem stems from many decades of abuse in allowing an entrenched culture of corruption and a way of life in DC.
We're making amazing headway in correcting this problem, in that the party fears the constituency, they colluded with the Dims in using the IRS to silence us, as evidenced by the sham hearings when they grilled Lerner and not one thing came of it.
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 11:05:08 AM
Agree, I never stated otherwise.
My point was, regardless of what we want, once in office, they do as they please. I never said before, because we have say at County level who gets in the party.
We also have control after the fact as in a final say at the ballot box. My point is we've allowed the Establishment to corrupt the system and all within the law.
Our problem stems from many decades of abuse in allowing an entrenched culture of corruption and a way of life in DC.
We're making amazing headway in correcting this problem, in that the party fears the constituency, they colluded with the Dims in using the IRS to silence us, as evidenced by the sham hearings when they grilled Lerner and not one thing came of it.
We owe some gratitude to Obama for awakening the sleeping giant called TEA. For decades GOPe had us fooled all the while they were in cahoots with the dems as they all padded their pockets. Then Trump comes along and blows up their little party from within DC. We just have to keep in mind it will take more time and diligence to fully drain the swamp.
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 11:05:08 AM
Agree, I never stated otherwise.
My point was, regardless of what we want, once in office, they do as they please. I never said before, because we have say at County level who gets in the party.
We also have control after the fact as in a final say at the ballot box. My point is we've allowed the Establishment to corrupt the system and all within the law.
Our problem stems from many decades of abuse in allowing an entrenched culture of corruption and a way of life in DC.
We're making amazing headway in correcting this problem, in that the party fears the constituency, they colluded with the Dims in using the IRS to silence us, as evidenced by the sham hearings when they grilled Lerner and not one thing came of it.
Then I misunderstood your previous post, in which you stated:
"I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants." and "Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment."
I don't think they do have the final say because we (TEA) have proven otherwise multiple times. I do think a large portion of the populace is in the habit of ALLOWING them the final say, and both sides do everything they can to encourage such leanings. (though IMO the DNC side far more than the RNC side, due to the fact that progs tend to revere, even promote .gov authority way more than conservatives do.)
But, again, that is not the fault of the system itself - and it seems to me Boo has issues with the system itself, and not simply with how it has been corrupted.
Thus my responses.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 19, 2018, 11:43:09 AM
We owe some gratitude to Obama for awakening the sleeping giant called TEA. For decades GOPe had us fooled all the while they were in cahoots with the dems as they all padded their pockets. Then Trump comes along and blows up their little party from within DC. We just have to keep in mind it will take more time and diligence to fully drain the swamp.
Obama certainly did his part in getting TEA rolling. But I believe the item that REALLY woke up conservatives to the shenanigans of the RNC playing the masses was the nomination of Senator John fracking MCCAIN. And THAT is the kernel around which the TEA movement was formed.
Talk about HANDING an election to the opposition! Not to mention, how many registered republicans, let alone independent conservatives, voted for that twerp in the primaries? I certainly did not do so, nor any other conservative I know. Sure, many held their noses and pulled the lever for McCain in the general; but not so in the primaries. So how was that SOB foisted on us? IMO, it was not "merely" more legal corruption of the system, but rather outright ILLEGAL activities of the same sort that ousted Bernie from the DNC ticket in favor of Clintonista el femenino.
Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 12:15:43 PM
Obama certainly did his part in getting TEA rolling. But I believe the item that REALLY woke up conservatives to the shenanigans of the RNC playing the masses was the nomination of Senator John fracking MCCAIN. And THAT is the kernel around which the TEA movement was formed.
Talk about HANDING an election to the opposition! Not to mention, how many registered republicans, let alone independent conservatives, voted for that twerp in the primaries? I certainly did not do so, nor any other conservative I know. Sure, many held their noses and pulled the lever for McCain in the general; but not so in the primaries. So how was that SOB foisted on us? IMO, it was not "merely" more legal corruption of the system, but rather outright ILLEGAL activities of the same sort that ousted Bernie from the DNC ticket in favor of Clintonista el femenino.
When McCain was nominated GOPe still had a majority of GOP voters convinced it was McCain's turn (remember Bob Dole in 1996?). Also, there was not really an opposition candidate to GOPe that stood out. When McCain selected Palin as his running mate GOPe got its first taste of opposition to them. Remember they started trying to destroy her before the election as she cared GOPe to death.
Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 12:02:25 PM
Then I misunderstood your previous post, in which you stated:
"I think the point Boo is making, is the party machine has the final say regardless of what the voting constituent wants." and "Sad, that we've all become so accustomed to party politics that we stopped having an issue with them quashing our voice under the guise of the First Amendment."
I don't think they do have the final say because we (TEA) have proven otherwise multiple times. I do think a large portion of the populace is in the habit of ALLOWING them the final say, and both sides do everything they can to encourage such leanings. (though IMO the DNC side far more than the RNC side, due to the fact that progs tend to revere, even promote .gov authority way more than conservatives do.)
But, again, that is not the fault of the system itself - and it seems to me Boo has issues with the system itself, and not simply with how it has been corrupted.
Thus my responses.
I was referring to people like Allen West, where the GOP redistricted voting lines that literally removed him from office.
There was another race where TEA was destined to win and for no reason, the TEA candidate quietly walked away. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to a corrupt machine.
Ask ol' bernie if he thinks the primaries are rigged. :lol: :lol:
Quote from: s3779m on May 19, 2018, 01:39:20 PM
Ask ol' bernie if he thinks the primaries are rigged. :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on May 19, 2018, 01:07:21 PM
I was referring to people like Allen West, where the GOP redistricted voting lines that literally removed him from office.
There was another race where TEA was destined to win and for no reason, the TEA candidate quietly walked away. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to a corrupt machine.
Ahhh, now redistricting, along with state candidate filing requirements, qualifying restrictions for third party candidates, and all the other tricks the establishment uses to corrupt the election process, is a different topic under the same general heading. But neither the DNC nor RNC have authority to take part in those shenanigans. Those items come direct to us from the benevolent integrity of our elected officials.
Quote from: zewazir on May 19, 2018, 06:10:57 PM
Ahhh, now redistricting, along with state candidate filing requirements, qualifying restrictions for third party candidates, and all the other tricks the establishment uses to corrupt the election process, is a different topic under the same general heading. But neither the DNC nor RNC have authority to take part in those shenanigans. Those items come direct to us from the benevolent integrity of our elected officials.
Party politics at it's finest. There is no differentiation, they are all part of the Deepstate corruption Trump is taking down.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 08:08:42 AM
What is ethically or morally wrong about supporting a political organization that shares your agenda? Or don't you believe in freedom of speech?
Why would you post this?
Quote from: taxed on May 20, 2018, 03:59:28 PM
Why would you post this?
Because freedom of speech was the heart of the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Political contributions by PACs is free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. If someone opposes PACs giving money to candidates, then they obviously do not believe in the freedom of speech.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 20, 2018, 04:29:33 PM
Because freedom of speech was the heart of the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Political contributions by PACs is free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. If someone opposes PACs giving money to candidates, then they obviously do not believe in the freedom of speech.
Oh, I think you nailed it. Boo HATES free speech.
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 18, 2018, 06:12:25 PM
I don't know what country you are referring to, but that has never been the way it works in the US. Money has always been part of politics in the US, and it is neither unethical or immoral. It is called free speech and free association, which has been protected by the US Constitution since at least 1791.
Yes it is.
Quote from: taxed on May 20, 2018, 04:41:42 PM
Yes it is.
You think exercising a constitutionally protected right is both unethical and immoral? Seriously? :rolleyes:
Quote from: |Glitch| on May 20, 2018, 04:45:27 PM
You think exercising a constitutionally protected right is both unethical and immoral? Seriously? :rolleyes:
Yes. It's a constitutionally protected right to call somebody a bad name, but it's not very nice.
Quote from: taxed on May 20, 2018, 04:50:09 PM
Yes. It's a constitutionally protected right to call somebody a bad name, but it's not very nice.
Even if the individual has earned the bad name?
Quote from: zewazir on May 20, 2018, 08:24:15 PM
Even if the individual has earned the bad name?
You seem to be missing the point.