• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the Tea Party? Please explain!

so Rev
you really do not know the difference between using capital letters on a title like Tea Party and not using capital letters on a term like tea party?



I know when one does not have an intellectual argument one will tend to focus on idiotic punctuation and spelling mistakes. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
this is a lie. This has nothing to do with what the tea party is about. It's simply more sour grapes from the loser side of the election.
no, it is not a lie, in essence, that is what the tea party is..sorry, it is what it is....no sour grapes on my part, i hope both sides can get together and accoplish some things for the betterment of the country.
 
no, it is not a lie, in essence, that is what the tea party is..sorry, it is what it is....no sour grapes on my part, i hope both sides can get together and accoplish some things for the betterment of the country.



It is an absolute lie, and your smear campaign makes you look like a partisan hack. :shrug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
It is an absolute lie, and your smear campaign makes you look like a partisan hack. :shrug:
no sir, it is not, the tea party is an attempt to be 'republican light'....what are 99% of the tea party members rev? REPUBLICANS....they are attempting to lose the baggage of the party ....they are a wing of the republican party ....they are a tool of the main party. the next two years will be interesting, does the republican party leadership try and bring them into the fold, or do they distance themselves from the tea party?
 
no sir, it is not, the tea party is an attempt to be 'republican light'....

Lie. The tea party is a grassroots movement that wants lower taxes, smaller government, more accountable reps.



what are 99% of the tea party members rev? REPUBLICANS....


Lie #2, link to study showing that "99%" of those claiming tea party membership are republicans.


they are attempting to lose the baggage of the party ....they are a wing of the republican party ....they are a tool of the main party. the next two years will be interesting, does the republican party leadership try and bring them into the fold, or do they distance themselves from the tea party?


SO you form your opinion based on your lies. Nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Lie. The tea party is a grassroots movement that wants lower taxes, smaller government, more accountable reps.






Lie #2, link to study showing that "99%" of those claiming tea party membership are republicans.





SO you form your opinion based on your lies. Nice.
truth hurt rev? who is the 'tea party' associated with? who have the candidates of said 'tea party' associated themselves with? sorry, but indeed they are a branch of the republican party..
 
truth hurt rev?

Perhaps it hurts you, which is why you lie and slander us.


who is the 'tea party' associated with?


No one, it is a grass roots movement.


who have the candidates of said 'tea party' associated themselves with?


There are no tea party candidates. there are folks who embrace the TEA part of the TEA party, such as rand paul and marco rubio. But the TEA party has been the death of many a would be republican candidacy as well. If you bothered to educate yourself than post in a world of willful ignorance on your part, you wouldn't perhaps come off as a smearing partisan. :shrug:


sorry, but indeed they are a branch of the republican party..


This is a lie. Perhaps you should research the tea party before you post off all half cocked and ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
since I'm not American, but from Europe, I would like to ask you to explain to me what the Tea Party actually is.

It's a propaganda and talking point device for both branches of the Republocrat party.
 
Perhaps it hurts you, which is why you lie and slander us.





No one, it is a grass roots movement.





There are no tea party candidates. there are folks who embrace the TEA part of the TEA party, such as rand paul and marco rubio. But the TEA party has been the death of many a would be republican candidacy as well. If you bothered to educate yourself than post in a world of willful ignorance on your part, you wouldn't perhaps come off as a smearing partisan. :shrug:





This is a lie. Perhaps you should research the tea party before you post off all half cocked and ignorant.
believe what you like rev, i havent lied, and i have called it like i see it...the tea party can call itself 'grassroots' if it wants to, but it is mainly aligned with the republican party, and hence, are a tool of said party. it will be interesting to see how long before they are 'back in the fold' of the main party, since things went well for repubs last night...
 
believe what you like rev, i havent lied,

Sure you have.


and i have called it like i see it...the tea party can call itself 'grassroots' if it wants to, but it is mainly aligned with the republican party,

Moving goal posts? Sure it leans more towards the republican party, but that's only because of the fiscal desires of the tea party, this does not make it a "tool" of that party.



and hence, are a tool of said party.

Lie. :shrug:

it will be interesting to see how long before they are 'back in the fold' of the main party, since things went well for repubs last night...

You do realize the tea party took off right when bush announced the bailouts right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
This poll has some info.

Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics

As you can see, they're mostly conservatives, but there are also some moderates and a few liberals. Most of them AREN'T Republicans. There are PLENTY of Independents and some Democrats as well.

Their main focus is economic issues, particularly the enormous spending increases of the last couple years. The US hasn't seen anything on this scale since WW II. Even people on the left are complaining. Most people in the US disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy. As you can see in the poll, 28% of the US supports the movement, so it isn't a tiny group on the fringe and it isn't very conservative. Their opponents depict them as extremists, but the movement is against extreme economic policies. They're definitely right of center, but they're more centrist than extreme. Considering how unpopular Obama's economic policies are, I suspect that their support would be much higher than 28% if their opponents weren't flooding the media with negative images of them and depicting them as extreme.

Most of the people in the movement are also social conservatives and some want to broaden the movement, but they're focusing on economic issues in order to attract liberals, moderates, libertarians, Independents and Democrats. Many of those people would be turned away if they started focusing on social issues.

Ok, you're saying what you want to do. Now, instead of telling me generalities, be specific. Tell me what you want to cut and how much. That's the real challenge because there are consequences with those decisions and you have to be able to justify them. Stop ranting and start acting like you want to govern.
 
Originally Posted by haymarket
so Rev
you really do not know the difference between using capital letters on a title like Tea Party and not using capital letters on a term like tea party?

and the good Reverends reply to me

I know when one does not have an intellectual argument one will tend to focus on idiotic punctuation and spelling mistakes.

Not at all sir, not at all. Nobody is accusing you of making spelling or punctuation errors - let alone calling them idiotic.

There is an intellectual argument being made here by me. You keep ignoring it but allow me to go over it clearly with you.

1) you use the term "Tea Party" and claim it was "us" who scored big wins in Tuesdays elections.
2) I pointed out to you that there is no such thing as the Tea Party on the ballot of any states, let alone the winners in any election yesterday.
3) After several exchanges in which you pretended not to understand the difference between a formal on the ballot Tea Party and an informal movement some call the tea party, you then changed your terminology in posts and begin using the correct term - tea party - with no capitalization which would indicate that it is NOT a political party like the Democratic Party which was on the ballot and did win elections on Tuesday or the Republican Party which also was on the ballot and did win elections on Tuesday.

The intellectual argument is that there is no such thing as the Tea Party which you include yourself in as winners of Tuesdays elections. It simply does not exist as a political party. The tea party does exist as a right wing part of the Republican Party.

The distinction is important and factual.

btw- I would welcome and be happy if there actually was a Tea Party on the ballot in states. I look forward to someday seeing that although I know my hopes are without any foundation and such a thing is simply not going to happen.
 
Seriously kid, I have no interest in arguing over capitalization. :shrug:


You are attempting a strawman here by suggesting I thought there was an actual party called the tea party, but the intellectually curious would use the search feature to find out, i have been correcting folks on that assumption for quite some time. Up your game, this bores the Greatness that is the Good Reverend.
 
Are you a native English speaker? If you are then you must realize this is NOT any argument about capitalization but about the meaning attached to the terms you use for political purposes.

Do you understand that?

In point of fact, there is a Democratic Party. There is a Republican Party. One could even make the argument that there is a Libertarian Party or a Green Party.

There is no Tea Party. As such they cannot win any elections. This is just simple fact and application of standard terms as they are used in the English language.

Giving credit for something that did not happen cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected.
 
There is no Tea Party. As such they cannot win any elections. This is just simple fact and application of standard terms as they are used in the English language.

Rev has said the same thing in other threads. Is there a point to this back and forth you two are having or are we just upping post counts here?
 
the tea party, in essence, members of the Republican party trying to 're-brand' themselves, attempting to drop the 'baggage' associated with the republican party.
Nice try, most of them aren't Republicans.
 
Ok, you're saying what you want to do. Now, instead of telling me generalities, be specific. Tell me what you want to cut and how much. That's the real challenge because there are consequences with those decisions and you have to be able to justify them. Stop ranting and start acting like you want to govern.
Calm down, he didn't ask about me.
 
1. I'm for cuts across the board.
That's fine, but others amongst you seem to disagree (see American in post 16 above). Who is right? And what will your newly elected representatives argue in Congress?

2. By our voting power as seen in this historic election.
Now, you see, that's a circular argument. You vote for TP candidates in order to achieve greater accountability. What accountability? Why, to vote for TP candidates of course. Anyone see a bit of a logic failure here?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Rev, perhaps you'd been celebrating long into the night. Please have another go at explaining what 'greater accountability of elected officials' really means in practice and principle.
 
You disagree?
I've checked this in the past at nationmaster.com and the US was always behind several countries and way behind a few. I checked there just now and the US was completely removed from the list. I got conflicting data when I googled it.
 
I've checked this in the past at nationmaster.com and the US was always behind several countries and way behind a few. I checked there just now and the US was completely removed from the list. I got conflicting data when I googled it.

IIRC, the USA does not have the highest per capita military spending (that honor goes to cute North Korea), but it does by far have the highest total military spending worldwide. More than 50% of all military expenditures worldwide are made by the USA, which means the USA spend more on their military than all other nations on this planet combined.
 
Good evening,

since I'm not American, but from Europe, I would like to ask you to explain to me what the Tea Party actually is. I believe I do not really understand it, and considering the trend in journalism to look for sensations and shrill voices and events, it's a bit hard to know if it does that movement justice.

I've seen reports about obvious radicals at Tea Party events, like people who made shrill polemic comments, like comparing Obama to Hitler, or suggesting he is a Muslim out to destroy the country. Some broad-brushed things Obama did as "socialism", without really defining what they think that is, and why that's always a bad thing. I've also seen reports when people used many labels, from "constitutionalism" over "libertarianism" to "conservatism", but these terms were not defined, so I was not sure I really understand what they mean. I saw when Sarah Palin made rather heated remarks, like "don't retreat, instead reload!", comparing their fight to military action.

I admit that for me, as a European, what I've seen of the Tea Party so far didn't strike me as very likeable, some things I found even ugly. But probably that's mostly just because this movement is alien to me, and I have only seen few sensationalist reports. Also, campaigns are traditionally shriller and more polemic in the US than in Germany, so maybe I have a mild culture shock too. We guys are sometimes too cramped when it comes to politics. So I am honestly interested in your ideas, sentiments and reports.

I assume in case of any relatively spontanous political movement or ralley from any side of the political spectrum, you find these rather shrill elements. But most of the time, they are not representative, and don't really tell you much about the real intentions and complains of that movement. For example, you found quite a few shrill voices and polemics in the anti-Bush and anti-war ralleys, like the Bush-Hitler comparison or the Bush-chimp theme, but that doesn't say much about the general character and concerns of this movement.

So what is the Tea Party? Has it somethin in common with right-wing extremists in Europe? Or is it a good thing, something to bring back enthusiasm to politics, changing it for the better? Do I need to be afraid of the Tea Party, or welcome it?

Probably that is not different in case of the Tea Party. Since I assume there are people here who sympathize with the Tea Party, some maybe even actively involved, I would like to ask you: Can you explain to me, a foreigner, what you believe the Tea Party really, essentially stands for, what you like about it, what you maybe dislike about it? Of course those who disagree with the Tea Party are invited to post their impressions as well. Neutral impressions are just as welcome as polemics.

Looking forward to your replies!

I think there's a few aspects of the Tea Party movement that haven't been mentioned or thought of.

Essentially, it's a movement of paleo-conservative populists to take control of the Republican Party, and specifically take the Republican Party away from the neo-conservatives who previously held control of it.

Remember, the United States only has two major political parties. But that doesn't mean that everyone within one of the parties agrees with everyone else. This is because the two-party system, which naturally occurs because of plurality voting systems, calls for broad platforms. This is unlike the multi-party systems found in Europe and elsewhere, where there are more political parties with stronger party discipline as compared to the U.S., but the political parties form coalitions in order to hold majorities to pass legislation.

So, to use a metaphor that a European may better understand, don't think of it as the Republican Party and the Democratic Party but rather the Republican Coalition of conservatives and the Democratic Coalition of liberals.

So the Republican Coalition is made up of several conservative/rightist factions. Among these are paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, libertarians, and religious conservatives. All of these factions vie for control of the Republican Party to some degree, and how well they get along varies from time to time.

For quite some time paleo-conservatives were, for the most part, in control of the Republican Party. Paleo-conservatives have among their core beliefs:
1) economic conservatism: little regulation of businesses and the economy
2) fiscal conservatism: reduction of the national debt and national deficit
3) decentralization of government: "states' rights" advocacy, and reduction of "big government"
4) strong border policy: they are against easy immigration to the United States
5) a non-interventionist foreign policy: they are against interfering in the affairs of other nations, and many want to go so far as to pull out of the United Nations
6) traditional family values: they favor conservative old-fashioned values centered around conservative ideas of family (a married couple of a man and a woman raising their children)

Neo-conservatives, on the other hand, have different values. What makes them conservative, but "neo," is that they essentially favor centralization of government in order to promote their conservative values. They share many essential values with paleo-conservatives, but choose to use the government to promote them, whereas paleo-conservatives aren't as willing to use government interventionism. The core beliefs of neo-conservatives are the following:
1) limit government support to industry: neo-conservatives support using tax revenue to support or bail-out important industries, such as the airline industry or bank industry
2) use of national debt: neo-conservatives are not as fiscally responsible, and by that I mean they do not have such a strict adherence to a balanced budget or reduction of national debt
3) centralization of government: neo-conservatives believe in the use of government programs for conservative ideals
4) soft border policy: neo-conservatives want looser immigration regulations in order to benefit from foreign workers
5) interventionist foreign policy: neo-conservatives are more willing to use diplomacy and the military to promote American interests abroad

Neo-conservatism arose after the Great Depression, and basically applied FDR's principles of politics to conservative values. They came about during the '60's and '70's, ascended during the '80's and '90's, and came to power during GWB's administration.

Look up on YouTube a video from the Daily Show that shows "Governor Bush" debating "President Bush." Effectively, it shows GWB as a governor promoting many paleo-conservative ideals while as president he promoted many neo-conservative ideals.

It was during GWB's administration that many paleo-cons were silent on the intense government interference the neo-cons were doing into areas that traditionally the conservatives were against interfering in. Among these were the No Child Left Behind Act, the airline bailouts after 9/11, the Global War on Terror, wars for regime change in Iraq, and the bailouts GWB did during the burst of the housing market bubble in 2006-07. Many paleo-cons didn't criticize the neo-cons in order to provide a more united front against their opposition from the Democratic Party.

The bailouts of Wall Street was what really re-energized the base of the paleo-cons of the Republican Party. For years, the base voters of the conservative movement had grown up on paleo-conservative beliefs. However, the faction of neo-conservatives took power and went against those ideals. So while the voter base was heavily paleo-conservatives, it was neo-conservative politicians who came into power on their behalf.

So, in many ways, the Tea Party is a faction of paleo-conservative voters who are acting out not only against Democrats and liberals but also the neo-conservatives within their party. While the neo-conservative politicians were willing to use government dollars to support industries advocated by conservatives, paleo-conservative voters don't want government dollars to support any industries, even those advocated by conservatives.

So this is what I see what the Tea Party is all about. Basically a group of paleo-conservative voters who are attempting to make themselves heard by those of their own broad-based party and reassert paleo-conservatism in the Republican Party.
 
I was just about to ask this very question.
 
Back
Top Bottom