The Tea Party vs. the GOP thread

[YMix]

Ymix, it is always a challenging business comparing our contemporary political movements with the intent of the founders, mostly because the challenges for a small developing republic of the late 18th century and the challenges to an economic and military empire of the 21st century are so dramatically different. Political, intellectual, and social orientations and temperaments of the respective times are distant from each other in many ways.

The founders were conservative in the classical, Aristotelean sense of the term, in the virtuousness of public over private life. The public good, while narrowly defined at the time as the interests of propertied, white men, was paramount. Reason and extensive exercises in persuasion with the public welfare as the metric was essential to the process. Read the Federalist Papers, published tracts to persuade states to cede powers to a Federal government in the new constitution, for examples. The founders were keenly aware of the catastrophic failure to establish a viable republic following the 17th century English Civil War since partisan factionalism, political fragmentation, and the incoherence of any common, political project prevented successful governance. They were acutely aware of these dangers in the last, historical attempt to establish a republic, a century and a half before their nation’s founding where the remaining leaders of the revolution were hung, drawn, and quartered and Cromwell's body was disinterred and hung in effigy. The restraint of private passions, the emphasis on reasoned persuasion and compromise, all in the service of an Aristotelean public good, were central to their political efforts for very practical concerns.

Unfortunately, our contemporary politics has devolved into the factionalism they feared. Any sense of the public good is nowhere to be found in either party. Instead, factions are formed by private passions, convictions, and identifications commonly shared. Serious, rational persuasion is rarely to be found. Read our Op-Eds after reading the Federalist for an exercise in frustration. In addition, politics that is rooted in privately held convictions and passions turns the political process into a zero sum game where the more you win the more the other side loses and vice versa, your position and those of your tribe are of central importance over the common project, and reasoned compromise, the central governing mechanism conceived by the founders, becomes impossible. Failure to govern is of little consequence; ideological fealty and purity and the vanquishing the opposition are what really matters. Our current Congress has more in common with Colonel Pride’s Rump Parliament than what the founders envisioned. They, frankly, would be horrified at our current state of affairs.

While these problems include both parties in various ways, my disappointment with contemporary “conservatism” is more acute since I believe that a truly conservative approach of a more classical temperament could renew our republic. A conservatism that valued the public good over private need, that was wary and skeptical of ideological passions and factions, which believed in rule of law, civil society as a paramount value, fiscal prudence, and the nobility of public service, I would whole heartedly support. It is just not to be found and I do not find cynical resignation and passivity as a viable option.

Good points. The First Six (Washington-Monroe + J.Q. Adams) would be appalled by the partyism dominating the political life of the country. Washington spoke against this in his farewell address. Adams senior preferred to make peace behind Hamilton's back and destroy his own chances at a second term in order to nip the emerging factions in the bud. Alas, it couldn't last. A century later, Brooks Adams made the point that democracy had failed in the USA because the people did not rise to the Framers' level.

[YMix]

Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians “Idiots.”

The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado. (That’s in addition to the “Independent” in Kansas who’s a Democrat.) Democratic candidates don’t have to put up with this crap — they’re even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot.

When we’re all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we’ll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians.

Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

Ooops.

[YMix]

Chris McDaniel: My Lawsuit Will Expose “The Ugly Under Belly of Some Elements of the Republican Party.”

[...]

McDaniel’s goal is to not necessarily dismiss the run-off results, but rather to expose the corruption that took place. The kinds of corruption that took place, which included Cochran supporters conspiring with Democrat operatives to plant false racism charges against McDaniel, is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be exposed for folks to realize how corrupt the party of Reagan has become!

[...]

It’s important to keep this story alive to remind folks how ugly the GOP has gotten and to show how desperate they were to destroy one of their own in a primary, all in the name of keeping a tired old senile RINO in office! As Chris McDaniel has said many times: if they could get away with this in Mississippi, they could get away with it anywhere! Whatever the GOP once was, after Mississippi, no one can ever make the claim that it’s now a conservative and ethical party! Keep in mind, to this day, the national party has not censured or demanded the resignation of Henry Barbour, who once again was the corrupt GOP operative behind the race-baiting charges and the one responsible for conspiring with Democrats to entice thousands of black Democrats to cast illegal votes. What happened in Mississippi is a stain on the party of Ronald Reagan and it should make any Republican activist sick to their stomach!

[...]

Championing freedom is dirty business. Also, boring as hell for Mr. Perfect.

[YMix]

Judicial Showdown at the Minnesota Republican State Fair Booth Coral

[...]

Rank and file Americans across this country have been talking about taking back the country and restoring the Constitution. At the same time, conservatives across the country have been talking about the need to "take back the Republican Party". For the most part it has been nice rhetoric, but it hasn't happened. We first saw this "war" begin when the National GOP leaders like Progressive RINO House Speaker John Boehner and Progressive RINO Senator Mitch McConnell disrespected the TEA Party last year. Senator McConnell went on further in his own campaign to say the GOP would "crush the TEA Party everywhere".

With the Progressive RINO Republican establishment pulling out all the stops in Mississippi to make sure a TEA Party upstart didn't win the primary, we know taking back the Republican Party in any state, let alone nationally, is going to be a hard, messy and ugly mission.

[...]

As most of you are aware, this writer and hundreds of Minnesotans have ask for and been denied our Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances pursuant Natural Law as reduced to writing in the First Amendment since 2005. Specifically, each year since 2005, a coalition of groups and individuals have asked the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees for a hearing dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary on the record. Each year since 2005, both the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees have refused WE THE PEOPLE our requested hearing.

Your Minnesota Government then chose to engage in unlawful and unconstitutional retaliation against the perceived leaders and primary agitators of this movement, this writer amongst them. So great and blistering was this unlawful and unconstitutional retaliation by the MN Judiciary, that it caused some people to move out of the State, even out of the country.

[...]

In an apparent counter-offensive, earlier this year the MNGOP Progressive RINO leadership appointed an overall "chair" to "manage" the Minnesota GOP Judicial Chairs, and force their Progressive RINO agenda down their throats. This "Manager" basically tried to dictate what the official party line on the Judiciary, Judicial Candidates and on Merit Selection Retention Elections would be.

By Democratic Process, these rank and file Minnesota Republicans, who were elected to chair the vast majority of each of the Minnesota Republican Judicial Districts, revolted from the directives from on high. Among other things, they refused to support undermining the Constitutional Right of Minnesota Citizens to vote in full, fair and free elections of Minnesota Judges.

Once more on the offensive, these champions of rank and file Minnesotans put forward a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court. At the Minnesota State Convention, that put forward Michelle MacDonald who supports the Judicial Reform agenda and the Rule of Law. Michelle MacDonald won the Minnesota Republican Party nomination despite the best efforts of the Minnesota Republican Progressive RINO establishment. This writer has written about Michelle MacDonalds attempts to confront and overcome corruption on behalf of her clients before. And these articles were written without any knowledge by this writer that others would later put forward her name in nomination for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice:

Just as the Progressive RINO Republican Establishment did in Mississippi and in Kentucky(Mitch McConnell), the Progressive RINO Republican establishment of Minnesota has pulled out all the stops to prevent the election of candidate supported by the rank and file members of MNGOP. And, in this writer's opinion, this tactics resemble the tactics used against Rev. Dr. Martin Luther, King, Jr. in the FBI's COINTELPRO operation. This writer's regular readers are already aware our Government's FBI COINTELPRO operations which are used to demonized and discredit the voices of political dissent. This writer himself has been the victim of such a COINTELPRO operation.

[...]

Tsk, tsk.

[YMix]

Retired Republican Senator Leads Effort to Smash Local Tea Party

Sen. Al Simpson (R-WY) retired from the Senate in 1997, but he is now celebrating another political victory in his state.

The retired senator ran and won his election as a member of the Republican precinct committee in his hometown of Cody, Wyoming, together with his wife Ann.

[...]

Simpson said that he respected the Tea Party for calling for less debt, less spending, and less government, but he was deeply disturbed about the party’s direction.

“People here in the county, there was just some very extremist views coming, mostly social issues,” Simpson said.

Abortion, he explained, while terrible, was a “deeply intimate and personal decision” for a woman that the government should not be involved in. He also signaled his support for gay marriage.

[...]

Earlier in the year, Simpson invited DiLorenzo for a lunch, so that they could sit down and discuss their differences.

Simpson explained during the meeting that he was tired of the Big Horn Basin Tea Party maligning his record.

“That’s what I do, I’ve always done that,” he explained to Breitbart News about the lunch. “If those guys are after my ass, I like to go visit with them.”

But the lunch didn’t go well as Simpson demanded that the Tea Party learn to compromise, and DiLorenzo criticizing Republicans like Simpson for hurting the party.

“We’re in this situation we’re in because you and your cohorts have done nothing but compromise for the last forty years,” DiLorenzo told Simpson during the lunch, citing the exploding national debt, and an increasingly bigger government.

Simpson told DiLorenzo he was tired of the Tea Party representatives taking shots at his political record.

“Don’t start using phrases about me if you don’t know who the hell I am,” he said.

After the lunch, Simpson launched a local coalition of Republicans who vowed to “take back” the local Republican party from the Tea Party extremists.

[...]

Interesting views. I assume the GOP establishment begged him to come out of retirement to defeat the Tea Party candidate.

[YMix]

DISGRACE: Gutless Republicans Ally With Evil Democrats – Pass Bill That Fully Funds Obamacare, Funds Planned Parenthood and Funds ISIS Terror Allies in Middle East

Yesterday House Republicans waved the white flag in a bid to get home and campaign as quickly as possible. They not only passed a bill that funds ISIS terror allies in the Middle East, they also fully funded Obamacare and passed funding for Planned Parenthood. All without even a serious debate.

With friends like the GOP, who needs enemies?

And Republicans are wondering why a “wave” of support hasn’t shown up for the November elections?

Angry chap doesn't understand different opinions.

[YMix]

Arizona Columnist Graphically Illustrates How Open Primaries Foil Conservatives

[...]

The Arizona primary elections will be held on Tuesday, August 26. In today’s (8/23/14) Arizona Republic, the state’s main daily newspaper, a regular columnist there talked about “chilling prospects” for the Tea Party, going on to redefine “conservative” Republicans as those who conservatives now call “Lefties”. Of course, we conservatives don’t call them “Lefties”, we call them “RINOs” or “moderates”. However whether the author, Laurie Roberts knows it or not, “Tea Party” is indistinguishable from and inseparable from “conservative”. Also, whether or not Roberts is aware of it, the GOP Establishment is engaged in an effort to separate “conservative” from “Tea Party”, in order to proclaim their RINOs to be “conservatives” while vilifying as “extreme” those who they identify as “Tea Party”. But I digress…

Roberts’ article went on, and I believe it to have been the main thrust and intent of the article, to identify the main GOP primary races in the Metro Phoenix area where moderate Republicans were running for office against those she identified variously as “Tea Party”, “hard right”, “ultra-conservative” and “more conservative”. In short, it was a Democrat or leftist Independent’s voter guide to who to vote against in every significant primary race. Remember who it is who mostly reads the metro dailies these days: liberals. They will not vote for the Republican in the general election. Why should they be allowed to decide who among the Republicans will run in the general election? Look what it led to recently in Mississippi. This practice must stop and the GOP must lead the effort to end it in each of the more than twenty states which allow the practice. The GOP’s failure to lead in this effort will tell voters much about that party’s designs on America and Americans.

Tea Party Nation guy wants to get rid of open primaries because the Arizona GOP was openly and shamelessly wooing Democratic voters to defeat the Tea Party. Lawl.

[Doc]

Ymix why are you spamming this thread?

[YMix]

I am trolling myself by spamming my own thread with boring stuff. What a twist!

[Doc]

I am trolling myself by spamming my own thread with boring stuff. What a twist!

OK that is apparently the rule then.

[Mr. Perfect]

I am trolling myself by spamming my own thread with boring stuff. What a twist!

Seems like your long term MO.

[Mr. Perfect]

Internal power struggles and divisions are found wherever groups of people gather together.

Mr P,

I don't agree with everything you say, but this one sounds right.

Alex.

Hopefully ymix picks up on it soon. He finds the mundane and routine to be very exciting for some reason.

[YMix]

Hopefully ymix picks up on it soon. He finds the mundane and routine to be very exciting for some reason.

Now why would dirty political tricks be mundane and routine for the Champions of Freedom?

[Mr. Perfect]

The problem is the duopoly that controls the political life of your country. Which of the two parties has more or less control of the federal government for a couple of years is less important. This has already been discussed.

By who? The Democrats wanted single payer HC and we defeated that dead in it's tracks. I'm more than happy with Democrats not controlling the gov't and not getting single payer HC.

It is true that a duoploy controls "public life" in the US, but it doesn't really matter. One party controlled for a while, and it was a monopoly. Do you prefer that? If so why. If there were 3 parties we would be controlled by a triopoly, like many countries, and the parties would form alliances as we see in multiparty countries and act in effect as 2 parties.

You're chasing a distant windmill ymix. And I couldn't be happier.

Without the MSM, the Tea Party would've been an obscure fringe movement, whether you like it or not. Same goes for the Occupy people. The GOP is not merging with the Tea Party. The GOP is crushing the Tea Party, incorporating the "flexible" candidates who cannot be ignored and destroying the others. And pretty soon there won't be any Tea Party candidates left. Unfortunately for the GOP, not only that the Tea Party did not give popular coloring to a 100% establishment candidate, but its members also became uppity and turned against their masters.

The TP goes back to before Goldwater, at least 50 years. And it will continue 50 years from now. It may be called different things at different time; "Reagan Democrats", "the Silent Majority", "the moral majority", but nothing is really different or will really be different. Nothing to do with the MSM one way or the other. There will be a conservative wing and a moderate wing in the GOP forever, whatever forms they may take. Hard to find a moderate Democrat wing, so maybe some differences over there.

Sometimes a Reagan or W BUsh gets the nomination. Sometimes it HWB or a Romney gets it. Just the nature of it. Nothing new or interesting there.

If you say so.

Nicely for me. I imagine you aren't as happy.

A 26-year Reagan era? Because of a couple of tax cuts? Sounds a bit far-fetched. At least you admit that massive deficit spending is also part of the Reagan era.

Because of his enormous popularity, and his ranking as the greatest President in our history by the American people, and the broad GOP majority captured in 1994 that continued until 2006, and on and on and on and on. Even Tinker doesn't challenge this contention, and he barely knows anything about US politics.

However I don't think I'm going to go into remedial US politics here, even if it is the subject of the thread.

Are they as easily offended as you? I thought they were tough people.

More like not time wasters.

So? I'll be content with understanding some things properly.

Like what.

I know, I know, it's always those other people.

The TP seems to represent "the other" to you, which is a bit mystifying.

This isn't even worth a reply. If you have proof of lying, show it.

That's the whole thing, people with ulterior motives rarely if ever admit them. Does that mean they don't exist or can't be detected? Life is full of making decisions.

At least don't be daft. Let's assume that Oklahoma and some other Bible-belt states secede from the USA. How long would it take to staff all levels of the new government structure with true believers? A month? Two months? And then the radicals would start climbing toward the top. That's pretty much inevitable. As for the Obama movement, f*uck them. They should've known better than to trust a party hack.

Hmm. Interesting question. Interesting what if.

I have a better one. What if the Earth was smashed with a meteor and unicorns came out of it, and began to eat all the turkeys. Would the Seahawks repeat as Superbowl Champions?

If that's your greatest example...

In contemporary US history.

Is that so? I asked you repeatedly to comment on some of the news items posted in this thread and you, the man who doesn't even need a challenge to butt it, would not answer. Sounds more like avoidance.

Ymix. Pleas get a reading comprehension class, or youtube. I never said I didnt avoid it. I said I didn't strain to avoid it. I avoided it because it was BORING and did no harm to me personally or my movement. As you I'm sure are aware, I will combat liberals or anti-conservative material at the drop of a hat. Anything that threatens conservatism gets my full attention.

Nothing you ave done here threatens me in any way whatsoever. Sorry, I just don't feel a knife. I don't feel trolled. Sorry. It's laughable tbh.

That's your problem, not mine.

True. But judging by election forecasts it's not really a problem

You have yet to establish that.

We already discussed it earlier.

I can see that. It must be why you're trying to downplay the destruction of the Tea Party.

I don't really care about it one way or the other, because I understand what has happened 100 times better than you. If the TP was gone tomorrow it wouldn't effect me one way or the other. My primary goal was to stop obama, and we did it. He is now considered the worst President in American history and has a long long list of legislative failures, thanks both to the TP and the GOP. Loving it.

Champions of Freedom trying to destroy each other? I find that notable.

Judging by election forecasts they are doing a terrible job at it. We're much better at destroying Democrats these days.

[Mr. Perfect]

Hopefully ymix picks up on it soon. He finds the mundane and routine to be very exciting for some reason.

Now why would dirty political tricks be mundane and routine for the Champions of Freedom?

Dirty political tricks are mundane and routine for everyone ymix. That is what we've been trying to tell you.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ymix, it is always a challenging business comparing our contemporary political movements with the intent of the founders, mostly because the challenges for a small developing republic of the late 18th century and the challenges to an economic and military empire of the 21st century are so dramatically different. Political, intellectual, and social orientations and temperaments of the respective times are distant from each other in many ways.

The founders were conservative in the classical, Aristotelean sense of the term, in the virtuousness of public over private life.

Yes. But what they considered to be public good and what you seem to imply are different.

The Founders believed to a man that strictly limited government was a public good, among the highest.

The public good, while narrowly defined at the time as the interests of propertied, white men, was paramount. Reason and extensive exercises in persuasion with the public welfare as the metric was essential to the process. Read the Federalist Papers, published tracts to persuade states to cede powers to a Federal government in the new constitution, for examples. The founders were keenly aware of the catastrophic failure to establish a viable republic following the 17th century English Civil War since partisan factionalism, political fragmentation, and the incoherence of any common, political project prevented successful governance. They were acutely aware of these dangers in the last, historical attempt to establish a republic, a century and a half before their nation’s founding where the remaining leaders of the revolution were hung, drawn, and quartered and Cromwell's body was disinterred and hung in effigy.

Yes. Libertarians who believed in government. That government has a role, but must be strictly limited. Nothing to fear, in the end, from Libertarians.

The restraint of private passions, the emphasis on reasoned persuasion and compromise, all in the service of an Aristotelean public good, were central to their political efforts for very practical concerns.

Unfortunately, our contemporary politics has devolved into the factionalism they feared.

Yes. But that is why they made separations of powers.

Any sense of the public good is nowhere to be found in either party.

No. Even I believe some Democrats are motivated by what they think is in the public's best interest. We just disagree with what that is.

Instead, factions are formed by private passions, convictions, and identifications commonly shared. Serious, rational persuasion is rarely to be found. Read our Op-Eds after reading the Federalist for an exercise in frustration.

Read the op eds before the revolution, to give insights on what we're currently going through. Similar tone among other things. Also read up on Jefferson's Presidential campaigns.

In addition, politics that is rooted in privately held convictions and passions turns the political process into a zero sum game where the more you win the more the other side loses and vice versa,

Nothing new about that.

your position and those of your tribe are of central importance over the common project,

What is the common project again? My project is to eliminate 75% of government. What can I find in common with Democrats.

and reasoned compromise, the central governing mechanism conceived by the founders, becomes impossible.

That is not the central governing mechanism. Arguably the central mechanism is the 10th amendment. Restriction of government.

Failure to govern is of little consequence; ideological fealty and purity and the vanquishing the opposition are what really matters. Our current Congress has more in common with Colonel Pride’s Rump Parliament than what the founders envisioned. They, frankly, would be horrified at our current state of affairs.

Gridlock is a central feature of the Constitution. The more bodies the more gridlock. The people are tiring of gridlock apparently and are going to give control to the GOP, which is fine with me. Another step toward the project.

I think the Founders would be horrified, true, but the specifics of what would horrify them we may disagree on.

While these problems include both parties in various ways, my disappointment with contemporary “conservatism” is more acute since I believe that a truly conservative approach of a more classical temperament could renew our republic. A conservatism that valued the public good over private need, that was wary and skeptical of ideological passions and factions, which believed in rule of law, civil society as a paramount value, fiscal prudence, and the nobility of public service, I would whole heartedly support. It is just not to be found and I do not find cynical resignation and passivity as a viable option.

Sounds like platitudes, no offense. The bottom line the Democrats have single payer in their DNA, and the GOP has no single payer at all costs in our DNA. This goes back several decades now. The immovable object and the unstoppable force.

The Founders in no way would accept single payer health care, in addition probably 75% of gov't altogether that we currently have.

My guess is there is more to your acute disappointment. That you are trying to get a compromise on single payer. Not gonna happen

[YMix]

Dirty political tricks are mundane and routine for everyone ymix. That is what we've been trying to tell you.

The more I learn about the Champions of Freedom, the worse they sound.

[Enki]

Dirty political tricks are mundane and routine for everyone ymix. That is what we've been trying to tell you.

The more I learn about the Champions of Freedom, the worse they sound.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[YMix]

Let me put it this way: the Champions of Freedom lie to each other, knife each other in the back, are too incompetent or unpopular to keep the Democrats from acquiring control of the federal government, have spent most of the past 100 years watching from the sidelines, failed to prevent in any meaningful way the emergence and growth of the welfare state, are very much in favor of the national security state... why would anyone vote for them? Not to mention that people who play dirty tricks on each other should obviously be voted into office because they would never, ever lie to their voters. You couldn't make this up.

[YMix]

By who? The Democrats wanted single payer HC and we defeated that dead in it's tracks. I'm more than happy with Democrats not controlling the gov't and not getting single payer HC.

It is true that a duoploy controls "public life" in the US, but it doesn't really matter. One party controlled for a while, and it was a monopoly. Do you prefer that? If so why. If there were 3 parties we would be controlled by a triopoly, like many countries, and the parties would form alliances as we see in multiparty countries and act in effect as 2 parties.

You're chasing a distant windmill ymix. And I couldn't be happier.

The distant mills are called the public good, citizen involvement and citizen understanding of the political process. Plus the abolition of political parties.

The TP goes back to before Goldwater, at least 50 years. And it will continue 50 years from now. It may be called different things at different time; "Reagan Democrats", "the Silent Majority", "the moral majority", but nothing is really different or will really be different. Nothing to do with the MSM one way or the other. There will be a conservative wing and a moderate wing in the GOP forever, whatever forms they may take. Hard to find a moderate Democrat wing, so maybe some differences over there.

It doesn't matter if the conservative wing exists if it's not allowed to get its ideas out. The MSM shone a spotlight on a group of people and made them much more famous than they would've gotten on their own. It gave them visibility, notoriety and access to the public. It declared the Tea Party to be a hot item for a while. Once the movement was past its due date, the spotlight was turned off and the Tea Party was declared old news.

Because of his enormous popularity, and his ranking as the greatest President in our history by the American people, and the broad GOP majority captured in 1994 that continued until 2006, and on and on and on and on. Even Tinker doesn't challenge this contention, and he barely knows anything about US politics.

I thought it was his deficit spending that the banksters liked.

More like not time wasters.

What does that have to do with anything?

Like what.

The things that people do.

The TP seems to represent "the other" to you, which is a bit mystifying.

They are a strange and somewhat interesting group.

That's the whole thing, people with ulterior motives rarely if ever admit them. Does that mean they don't exist or can't be detected? Life is full of making decisions.

So... nothing?

Hmm. Interesting question. Interesting what if.

I have a better one. What if the Earth was smashed with a meteor and unicorns came out of it, and began to eat all the turkeys. Would the Seahawks repeat as Superbowl Champions?

Boring.

Ymix. Pleas get a reading comprehension class, or youtube. I never said I didnt avoid it. I said I didn't strain to avoid it. I avoided it because it was BORING and did no harm to me personally or my movement. As you I'm sure are aware, I will combat liberals or anti-conservative material at the drop of a hat. Anything that threatens conservatism gets my full attention.

Tsk, tsk.

Nothing you ave done here threatens me in any way whatsoever. Sorry, I just don't feel a knife. I don't feel trolled. Sorry. It's laughable tbh.

Then why are you even complaining?

True. But judging by election forecasts it's not really a problem

You've said that before.

We already discussed it earlier.

Same answer.

I don't really care about it one way or the other, because I understand what has happened 100 times better than you. If the TP was gone tomorrow it wouldn't effect me one way or the other. My primary goal was to stop obama, and we did it. He is now considered the worst President in American history and has a long long list of legislative failures, thanks both to the TP and the GOP. Loving it.

Ditching the Tea Party already? You must be a Champion of Freedom, too.

Judging by election forecasts they are doing a terrible job at it. We're much better at destroying Democrats these days.

Oh, don't worry. I'll enjoy the rise to power of another batch of establishment Republicans. I'm sure they will bring change to the USA.

[Enki]

Let me put it this way: the Champions of Freedom lie to each other, knife each other in the back, are too incompetent or unpopular to keep the Democrats from acquiring control of the federal government, have spent most of the past 100 years watching from the sidelines, failed to prevent in any meaningful way the emergence and growth of the welfare state, are very much in favor of the national security state... why would anyone vote for them? Not to mention that people who play dirty tricks on each other should obviously be voted into office because they would never, ever lie to their voters. You couldn't make this up.

And yet there doesn't seem to be any threat of a Democratic majority in 2014. The Champions of Freedom will bumble their way to a gerrymandered victory yet again.

[manolo]

And yet there doesn't seem to be any threat of a Democratic majority in 2014. The Champions of Freedom will bumble their way to a gerrymandered victory yet again.

Enki,

Maybe a Democratic majority will be the champion of freedom.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Let me put it this way: the Champions of Freedom lie to each other, knife each other in the back,

Just like any political movement you have ever supported. Why don't you name a political movement you have supported, then we can see how moral they are, and we can establish whether or not you are intellectually honest with us.

I'm waiting.

are too incompetent or unpopular to keep the Democrats from acquiring control of the federal government,

Well give us the MSM and watch things do a 180.

have spent most of the past 100 years watching from the sidelines,

No, we were the backbone of the Reagan era. We made it happen.

failed to prevent in any meaningful way the emergence and growth of the welfare state,

Well we stopped single payer in it's tracks. I'll take that.

are very much in favor of the national security state...

That is the nature of the Libertarian. If you read the Constitution, national defense is the primary purpose of the Federal Government.

why would anyone vote for them?

You might want to find out because people are lining up around the block. Me, I don't educate belligerents. There is no incentive for me to tell you why people are voting GOP and not Democrat. In fact the less you know the better.

Not to mention that people who play dirty tricks on each other should obviously be voted into office because they would never, ever lie to their voters. You couldn't make this up.

One man's dirty trickster is another man's freedom fighter.

[Mr. Perfect]

Enki,

Maybe a Democratic majority will be the champion of freedom.

Alex.

We had that for 2 years (2009-2010) and the voters couldn't get rid of it quick enough. The results were the opposite.

[Mr. Perfect]

And yet there doesn't seem to be any threat of a Democratic majority in 2014. The Champions of Freedom will bumble their way to a gerrymandered victory yet again.

How do you gerrymander Senate Seats? Please answer this question.