Politico: Tea Party, Down But Not Out, Plans 2016 Comeback

[libertybele]

A Libertarian Republican is a bad thing?

Libertarians support minimalist government, more freedom and fiscal responsibility both personal and governmental.

Perhaps stressing the commonalities is a better way to judge a politician's performance than judging them on the differences.

Sorry, but I am not the only one that considers McCain a RINO; otherwise he would be sitting in the oval office.

Do you even begin to understand just how much wrong there is in that statement?

The true RINO is that Republican who once the Party's nominee has been elected by the Party's membership does not cast a vote for that nominee in the general election because his or her "guy" isn't the nominee.

Most everyone in this forum has stated that they will vote for the GOP nominee irrespective of who that is, I'd vote for Palin if she won the nomination and I don't think she'd make a good President at all,  but there are some here who have openly stated that they won't vote for this guy or that guy if nominated. That's their right, but that makes them RINOs.

McCain/Palin was a horrendous ticket, but it was a far better option than Obama/Biden, and anyone who didn't see that is a fool.

Romney/Ryan was a better ticket than Obama/Biden2, and anyone who didn't see that is a fool.

McCain/Palin would be a better option than Clinton/Anyone, and anyone who doesn't see that is equally a fool.

And any GOP ticket will be better than Hillary and Bill Clinton running the WH and the nation again.

Anyone who doesn't see that is a fool.

A fool is someone who chooses to always vote for the lesser of two evils when they have an alternate choice and is equally a fool when they refuse to vote their conscious and vote for party just for the sake of voting for party.

Secondly you are of course welcome to your opinion of what a "true" RINO is, but I tend to agree with the definition of most; Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative.  Further in my opinion, RINO's also tend to side with Democrats on issues to try and gather votes; therefore they have very little integrity.

[DCPatriot]

A fool is someone who chooses to always vote for the lesser of two evils when they have an alternate choice and is equally a fool when they refuse to vote their conscious and vote for party just for the sake of voting for party.

Secondly you are of course welcome to your opinion of what a "true" RINO is, but I tend to agree with the definition of most; Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative.  Further in my opinion, RINO's also tend to side with Democrats on issues to try and gather votes; therefore they have very little integrity.

It would be nice if you acknowledged your error in charging musiclady with calling you a liar....and for erroneously being called "anti-TEA Party".

Mistakes can happen when debate gets going got and heavy.  We all make them from time to time.   

[musiclady]

It would be nice if you acknowledged your error in charging musiclady with calling you a liar....and for erroneously being called "anti-TEA Party".

Mistakes can happen when debate gets going got and heavy.  We all make them from time to time.   

It would be nice.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It would be nice if you acknowledged your error in charging musiclady with calling you a liar....and for erroneously being called "anti-TEA Party".

Mistakes can happen when debate gets going got and heavy. We all make them from time to time.   

Shut the front door!

Surely you jest!

[truth_seeker]

A fool is someone who chooses to always vote for the lesser of two evils when they have an alternate choice and is equally a fool when they refuse to vote their conscious and vote for party just for the sake of voting for party.

Secondly you are of course welcome to your opinion of what a "true" RINO is, but I tend to agree with the definition of most; Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative.  Further in my opinion, RINO's also tend to side with Democrats on issues to try and gather votes; therefore they have very little integrity.

Name and justify a 3rd party vote that you have cast, when confronted with "two evils" as the main choices.

Ross Perot, George Wallace, Pat Buchanan?

[Bigun]

Shut the front door!

Surely you jest!

Some people here get really upset by threads such as this one but I happen to think they are VERY therapeutic and serve us all well!

[aligncare]

We all want better candidates. But, we have to work with what we have: imperfect humans. Luckily, this time we have a plethora from which to choose; all shapes, sizes, experience, genders, fashion sense, and political philosophies—all come with their ever pesky human foibles.

I wish I could vote for Thomas Jefferson, but he's not running this cycle.

[Lando Lincoln]

I wish I could vote for Thomas Jefferson, but he's not running this cycle.

He ain't one of those RINO guys I keep reading about, is he?

[Luis Gonzalez]

He ain't one of those RINO guys I keep reading about, is he?

Are you kidding me?

Of COURSE he's a RINO.

All that "wall of separation" nonsense...

[DCPatriot]

Are you kidding me?

Of COURSE he's a RINO.

All that "wall of separation" nonsense...

  

[EdinVA]

Both the mainstream democratic party and the republican party have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and to that end, group think is strongly encouraged expected.  It is in both parties interest that the country remain poised precariously on the precipice of the cliff, neither going up or down, in order to sustain the demons on each side so they can constantly declare a vote for anyone other than "me" is a waste.  Politicians by definition are liars, so never heed what they say or write but rather what they do.  That will show their true colors.

Imagine the founding fathers had not the courage to stand alone, think outside the box, we would still be spending shillings.  Imagine Carnegie, Jobs, Gates, Westinghouse with the same logic.  We would still be traveling by horseback, election results would take months, we would still be talking on wires buried under the ground and using candles to read by.  It is very disappointing that our political system has become so corrupt and self serving.

I have, and always will vote for the best person for the job regardless of party.  I submit that the GOP are the ones wasting our time by repeatedly nominating those they believe best continue the status quo and that the United States Congress is our surrogate nanny and should get involved in baseball and healthcare (Romney care) rather than passing a balanced budget or attending to the needs of our military. 

[olde north church]

Both the mainstream democratic party and the republican party have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and to that end, group think is strongly encouraged expected.  It is in both parties interest that the country remain poised precariously on the precipice of the cliff, neither going up or down, in order to sustain the demons on each side so they can constantly declare a vote for anyone other than "me" is a waste.  Politicians by definition are liars, so never heed what they say or write but rather what they do.  That will show their true colors.

Imagine the founding fathers had not the courage to stand alone, think outside the box, we would still be spending shillings.  Imagine Carnegie, Jobs, Gates, Westinghouse with the same logic.  We would still be traveling by horseback, election results would take months, we would still be talking on wires buried under the ground and using candles to read by.  It is very disappointing that our political system has become so corrupt and self serving.

I have, and always will vote for the best person for the job regardless of party.  I submit that the GOP are the ones wasting our time by repeatedly nominating those they believe best continue the status quo and that the United States Congress is our surrogate nanny and should get involved in baseball and healthcare (Romney care) rather than passing a balanced budget or attending to the needs of our military.

Most people prefer the status quo.  It doesn't challenge and change causes fear.  Not the empty "change".

[Bigun]

Most people prefer the status quo.  It doesn't challenge and change causes fear.  Not the empty "change".

Not me! I would undo a lot of the 20th century politically if I could! The 16th and 17th amendments would be history right off the bat and then we would get rid of  most of the "New Deal and all of the "Great Society" programs!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Most people prefer the status quo.  It doesn't challenge and change causes fear.  Not the empty "change".

Change always means destabilizing the norm. That's its nature.

The problem with people who advocate for change is that they expect that change to bring about a set of expected and very specific results.

However, the ONE thing that you can't expect when you destabilize anything is predictability.

Change for the sake of change is not a good goal.

[EdinVA]

Change always means destabilizing the norm. That's its nature.

The problem with people who advocate for change is that they expect that change to bring about a set of expected and very specific results.

However, the ONE thing that you can't expect when you destabilize anything is predictability.

Change for the sake of change is not a good goal.

Reckless change such as executive orders, congressional overreach, refusing balanced budgets, neglecting national security, failure to uphold existing laws, destabilizes.

Well thought out and executed change does not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Reckless change such as executive orders, congressional overreach, refusing balanced budgets, neglecting national security, failure to uphold existing laws, destabilizes.

Well thought out and executed change does not.

Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.

Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.

About Romneycare...

The first principle of conservative governance should always be Federalism. Romneycare may not be a conservative action, but the underlying principle of it is certainly as conservative as it can get. The people of the State supported it, the majority of the State legislature supported it, so it was signed into law.

If the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage were to be decided exactly as Romneycare was decided, that would be a conservative way to decide the issues.

Most changes in government come about as a reaction to something happening at the specific time that the change occurred. That's certainly the case with the Constitution; we have a Constitution because the Framers figured out that changes needed to be made to the Articles of Confederation because they weren't working, but due to the unpredictability of change, they ended up scrapping the AoC and ended up with a brand-new Constitution.

Then there are the cases where "well thought out and executed changes" bring about unexpected results.

I am certain that the last thing that the drafters of the XIV Amendment (another one of those "well thought out and executed changes") thought would happen as a result of the Amendment, was that children of illegal aliens born on US soil would qualify for POTUS, yet that's where we are right now. 

[EdinVA]

Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.

Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.

My point exactly!  Everyone is an expert, everyone wants to ignore today and tomorrow and continue to bash over yesterday so we never move forward.
Abortion/gay rights/native americans/slavery have dominated the legislative agenda for decades, I am done.
I am sorry we were mean to people, but we are where we are and if we cannot get past this we are done...

We are here, what are we going to do about our kids future?

[Bigun]

Yet Bigun would get rid of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Can't think of any change more structured and thought out than Constitutional Amendments.

Everyone makes the argument that something done differently would have brought about more positive results, and that (in essence) is true, but they always discount the real possibility that the exact opposite could also come about, and that the opposite result has a 50% probability of happening.

About Romneycare...

The first principle of conservative governance should always be Federalism. Romneycare may not be a conservative action, but the underlying principle of it is certainly as conservative as it can get. The people of the State supported it, the majority of the State legislature supported it, so it was signed into law.

If the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage were to be decided exactly as Romneycare was decided, that would be a conservative way to decide the issues.

Most changes in government come about as a reaction to something happening at the specific time that the change occurred. That's certainly the case with the Constitution; we have a Constitution because the Framers figured out that changes needed to be made to the Articles of Confederation because they weren't working, but due to the unpredictability of change, they ended up scrapping the AoC and ended up with a brand-new Constitution.

Then there are the cases where "well thought out and executed changes" bring about unexpected results.

I am certain that the last thing that the drafters of the XIV Amendment (another one of those "well thought out and executed changes") thought would happen as a result of the Amendment, was that children of illegal aliens born on US soil would qualify for POTUS, yet that's where we are right now.

OH the 16th and 17th amendments were well thought out alright but the question is by whom and for what purpose!

I'll give you a hint. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time!

[Luis Gonzalez]

OH the 16th and 17th amendments were well thought out alright but the question is by whom and for what purpose!

I'll give you a hint. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time!

That's irrelevant.

The Constitution was amended according to Constitutional standards.

[Bigun]

That's irrelevant.

The Constitution was amended according to Constitutional standards.

You may think WHY it was amended to be irrelevant but I certainly do not!

And whether they were properly done is not quite so open and shut as you seem to think either!

[Luis Gonzalez]

You may think WHY it was amended to be irrelevant but I certainly do not!

And whether they were properly done is not quite so open and shut as you seem to think either!

Why is irrelevant.

It was ratified by two-thirds of both houses.

[Bigun]

Why is irrelevant.

It was ratified by two-thirds of both houses.

The Congress does not ratify amendments to the Constitution Luis!  They can only propose amendments by a two thirds vote of both houses.

Ratification is done by three fourths of the states and the wording of what is ratified has to be exactly the same in every one of those states. Today that would require thirty eight of the fifty to agree. When the 16th and 17th were (supposedly) ratified the number was thirty six of the forty eight states.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Congress does not ratify amendments to the Constitution Luis!  They can only propose amendments by a two thirds vote of both houses.

Ratification is done by three fourths of the states and the wording of what is ratified has to be exactly the same in every one of those states. Today that would require thirty eight of the fifty to agree. When the 16th and 17th were (supposedly) ratified the number was thirty six of the forty eight states.

I stand corrected, yet two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the States agreed to amend the Constitution in a manner consistent with then Constitution.

This cements both my arguments in.

1. Change (any change) has unpredictable outcomes.

2. The changes established in the XIV, XVI and XVII Amendments were ratified  in accordance to Constitutional standards and what we think about their purpose at this point in time is irrelevant. We can only attemp to go through the process again and try reversing them. We should not however, expect predictable  results from that (see #1).