Even I May Vote 3rd Party!

Started by Yawn, January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Yawn

I'm HOPING the Tea Party is able to bring the Republican Party back to reality. The Demonrats are insane, and I have no hope for them.  But if the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd Party, and I am forced to choose, I will vote for a Tea Party candidate.

Splitting the Republican Party seems like a BIG mistake, but maybe, when everything falls apart, even a majority of Democrat voters will come to their senses and understand the Tea Party message. Obummer, Pelosi and Reid do seem to still have a spell over these ignorant voters, but MAYBE they'll come around.

None of this 3rd Party talk would be necessary if the Republicans would just wake up before they help Obama finish us off!

raptor5618

I think the issues that the Tea party stands for have far more supporters than just those who have aligned themselves with the tea party.   As of today, I think the GOP is no longer relevant other than they are the party you have to vote for when the Dem choice is just too outrageous.  The GOP stands for nothing, they have no core values and as far as hypocrisy goes they may be worse than the Dem's because they go on and on about small govt and less taxes and then do no more than give lip service to those goals. 

I find fault with some of what Ron Paul saw as the way forward but I had to respect him because he followed those beliefs and the people who were in his district knew that if they voted for him they were going to be represented exactly as he said he would.  Vote for someone in the GOP and you are hoping they stick to their word.   If you think about it voting for a Dem you often do get what you voted for. Bigger govt and more taxes. They may claim that the Rich and corporations are going to pay for it but follow the money and it is clear that  the bottom of the consumer chain and those who take what jobs they can get ultimately take the hit for all that the Dem's do.  The Dem's are just lucky enough that there are enough people that cannot think past a single action. 

They see tax go up on say a gas and oil company and they are overjoyed that big bad oil companies are being punished.  That they are going to pay for their actions.  But especially when it comes to gas and diesel they can easily pass it on to the consumer who really pays for any taxes paid by companies.  For products where pricing is more competitive well it is not all that complicated to figure out how a company prices what ever products it makes.   Essentially the cost to produce it plus an add on for taxes and profit.   So if you cannot increase your price for your product well it is simple math that Obama and the Dems do not get.  OK first graders what is the answer,  yes that is right the company has to either reduce its profit and tax or reduce the cost to produce the product.  Each has its own implication but usually workers lose their jobs, and the consumer purchases a product that was manufactured more cheaply.  Sometimes through improved productivity but often the raw materials are of a lesser quality.   Same price but now the product is not as good.  it really is as simple as A+B=C and when you alter one variable you have to change one or both of the other variables.  Like I said it really is simple and yet the clowns in DC ignore this truth and so many swallow it hook line and sinker.   I heard one commentator yesterday get all heated and say it is not this or that type of problem but it is an education problem because people are not smart enough to figure it out. 
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

AndyJackson

It may be time for us to embrace the Libertarians.  Them + the remaining legit tea party reps, may be the only way to hit the ground running with enough of a base.

I don't necessarily like the hands-off approach on drugs or international affairs....but then again I'm ready for anything to shrink the govt.  If those two things kill 2 big chunks of the bureaucracy...I think I'm ready to see how it goes.

Let's get back to 1884, and not Orwell's 1984.

Besides, what's the best way to fight the massive nanny state, than to throw the nanny out totally and let the kids grow up without her.

raptor5618

I am all for a whole lot of what is supported by the Libertarians.  I think that if the government focused on those things that are laid out in the constitution and not on preventing us from doing things to ourselves that might not be wise we would have a much better country.   No it will not eliminate addiction or people doing stupid things or harming others.  But if the govt and police only had to protect us from being harmed by others they would be far more effective than they are now when they waste so much time on actions that pose no harm to others.  I mean do we really need the govt protecting someone who is days or weeks away from succumbing to a terminal illness from taking a drug that has just been developed. 

I understand that there are aspects that might be cause for concern but so much of government is based on the assumption that we are incapable of making a good choice so the govt has to insure that they let us know what good choices we can pick from.  Clearly that protection has not eliminated bad outcomes so is it really necessary.   
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

AndyJackson

At this point I think Boehner, OConnel, Rove, et al, are literally trying to destroy conservatism and the tea party, because they are just too troublesome in the mainstream GOP's efforts to meld with the dems, and maintain a permanent stasis where there are no real GOP beliefs other than playing a willing patsy.

Apparently power and permanence have replaced core beliefs and self respect.

And the hardcore leftist believers are loving it.

taxed

I think we're looking at the wrong problem.  We have to figure out how to get the voting system back from the Marxists and unions.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: taxed on January 08, 2013, 12:01:53 PM
I think we're looking at the wrong problem.  We have to figure out how to get the voting system back from the Marxists and unions.
Reid, Angle, Nevada.
She had a lock on his seat, but his union buddies and illegals made sure he would remain.
Proof unions and Dim party are symbiotic, like a tick on a leach, something has to die.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

AndyJackson

That does give me some hope.  Unions are actually dying a slow painful death in many places.  Though their violent backlash will be a sight to see.

Bronx

Even though i'm somewhat new here most of you guys know how I feel. Never ever again will I waste my vote on the republican party again, unless a true conservative, better known as the Tea Party.

I didn't mind voting for Romney, I kind of though he was a stand up guy but what really pissed me off is the way the Republicans are acting now. So with that i'm going to have a cup of hot "TEA".

Solar if i'm not mistaken your here in Georgia with me. Come aboard and lets make some noise with the "Tea Party.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

A foolish man complains about his torn pockets.

A wise man uses it to scratch his balls.

taxed

Quote from: Bronx on January 08, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
Even though i'm somewhat new here most of you guys know how I feel. Never ever again will I waste my vote on the republican party again, unless a true conservative, better known as the Tea Party.

I didn't mind voting for Romney, I kind of though he was a stand up guy but what really pissed me off is the way the Republicans are acting now. So with that i'm going to have a cup of hot "TEA".

Solar if i'm not mistaken your here in Georgia with me. Come aboard and lets make some noise with the "Tea Party.

Same here.  It's conservative or bust for me.

Solar's in CA -- I'm in Jowja...
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Yawn

I won't vote 3rd party unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party. Until then, I will only vote for the most conservative Republican. I have no use for the Libertarians. The Founders were moral people--Conservatarians. They were not anarchists.

Darth Fife

Quote from: Yawn on January 07, 2013, 05:49:19 PM
I'm HOPING the Tea Party is able to bring the Republican Party back to reality. The Demonrats are insane, and I have no hope for them.  But if the Tea Party becomes an actual 3rd Party, and I am forced to choose, I will vote for a Tea Party candidate.

Splitting the Republican Party seems like a BIG mistake, but maybe, when everything falls apart, even a majority of Democrat voters will come to their senses and understand the Tea Party message. Obummer, Pelosi and Reid do seem to still have a spell over these ignorant voters, but MAYBE they'll come around.

None of this 3rd Party talk would be necessary if the Republicans would just wake up before they help Obama finish us off!

What I feel most of the Political Establishment fails to realize is that the Tea Party is not just made up of Republicans - there are a fair number of Democrats who believe in Tea Party principles as well.

If the Tea Party could split both the Democrat and the Republican parties...

That would be something!

Shooterman

Quote from: Yawn on January 08, 2013, 04:29:26 PM
I won't vote 3rd party unless the Tea Party becomes an actual party. Until then, I will only vote for the most conservative Republican. I have no use for the Libertarians. The Founders were moral people--Conservatarians. They were not anarchists.

Whatever is a Conservatarian? Exactly what were the Founders attempting to conserve?
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

AndyJackson

I think the conservatarian term, while inventive, is pretty appropriate.

The founders wanted a government free of all of the failures and abuses that they had seen in govts before then.  They did a remarkable job with creating a tapestry of minimalist govt, checks and balances, and basically revering individual rights, property, and individuality above govt power, groupthink, and weak cries for protections.

It borders on the anarchy-lite of pure libertarian philosophies, but it was tempered by the Judeo-Christian ethic of helping your neighbors somewhat (internally and externally), and framing things in a moral / ethical framework that only a religious foundation can bring.

The constitution is a thing of beauty in that it serves only one purpose....a catalog of all the things the govt can not do, and all of the ways that citizens are pre-eminent, free of virtually all govt effect, and free to own all that they can, with hard work and ambition.

The left hates every last tenet of that description.  Every single aspect.  Obama has said so, that the constitution is not supposed to be 'negative' or exclusionary....that it should be changed to list all of the things that the govt should be providing, all of the ways to make everyone happy and equal, and of course the related ways to make sure that nobody gets any more than anybody else.

But still, they had a moral and ethical imperative that brought a little empathy and community into the equation.  Not just anarchy or nihilism.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 09, 2013, 08:15:18 AM
I think the conservatarian term, while inventive, is pretty appropriate.

The founders wanted a government free of all of the failures and abuses that they had seen in govts before then.  They did a remarkable job with creating a tapestry of minimalist govt, checks and balances, and basically revering individual rights, property, and individuality above govt power, groupthink, and weak cries for protections.

It borders on the anarchy-lite of pure libertarian philosophies, but it was tempered by the Judeo-Christian ethic of helping your neighbors somewhat (internally and externally), and framing things in a moral / ethical framework that only a religious foundation can bring.

The constitution is a thing of beauty in that it serves only one purpose....a catalog of all the things the govt can not do, and all of the ways that citizens are pre-eminent, free of virtually all govt effect, and free to own all that they can, with hard work and ambition.

The left hates every last tenet of that description.  Every single aspect.  Obama has said so, that the constitution is not supposed to be 'negative' or exclusionary....that it should be changed to list all of the things that the govt should be providing, all of the ways to make everyone happy and equal, and of course the related ways to make sure that nobody gets any more than anybody else.

But still, they had a moral and ethical imperative that brought a little empathy and community into the equation.  Not just anarchy or nihilism.

Well said.

I would think the libertarian perspective comes closest to this ideal.

For as much as libertarians are painted as heartless and cold, at least they understand that empathy, community, charity and virtue were not the outcome of a central plan or the nudging of enlightened leaders, rather they are found in a society with respect for individual rights and private property.

In other words, forced charity is no charity at all!