Other Resources The Political Joe » Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2014-06-13 11:53 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

I disagree..... The core economic philosophy of American liberalism is crony capitalism. I mean, I know liberals like to dress it up with euphemisms like "green jobs", "clean industry", "too big to fail", "climate change" or any other term to justify a centrally driven economy to funnel resources to the well connected. But in the end the foundation of liberal economics is the incestuous relationship between big government and big business.....The very definitions of crony capitalism..

I see both points, but I think to defend Drew a little bit,  I feel the establishment Liberals and Establishment Republicans both are heavy into crony capitalism, but when you get out into the core beliefs of people in both parties we fundamentally agree on personal liberties, curbing government spending, and a fair playing field.

The establishment liberals have their green jobs industries and the republicans have their military engine.  They both do the same things using scare tactics to justify the spending, but ultimately it's about propping up their buddies that put them in office.



2014-06-13 12:14 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by tuwood

The establishment liberals have their green jobs industries and the republicans have their military engine.  They both do the same things using scare tactics to justify the spending, but ultimately it's about propping up their buddies that put them in office.




You are exactly right about this. It is only going to get worse. Eric Cantor raised 5 million for his primary election as an example. Typically the one who spends the most wins. Campaign contributions has gone from giving money because you believe in them to purely an investment with expect rate of return.

I am not against some spending money it both of these situations. I feel it is something we need but do we need everything we are buying? is it worth the price we are paying? Probably not because I bet we are greatly over paying as apart of these paybacks.
2014-06-13 12:56 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by tuwood

The establishment liberals have their green jobs industries and the republicans have their military engine.  They both do the same things using scare tactics to justify the spending, but ultimately it's about propping up their buddies that put them in office.

You are exactly right about this. It is only going to get worse. Eric Cantor raised 5 million for his primary election as an example. Typically the one who spends the most wins. Campaign contributions has gone from giving money because you believe in them to purely an investment with expect rate of return. I am not against some spending money it both of these situations. I feel it is something we need but do we need everything we are buying? is it worth the price we are paying? Probably not because I bet we are greatly over paying as apart of these paybacks.

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

I disagree..... The core economic philosophy of American liberalism is crony capitalism. I mean, I know liberals like to dress it up with euphemisms like "green jobs", "clean industry", "too big to fail", "climate change" or any other term to justify a centrally driven economy to funnel resources to the well connected. But in the end the foundation of liberal economics is the incestuous relationship between big government and big business.....The very definitions of crony capitalism..

You left out that they like to wear puppy fur coats too.  

This is ridiculous and demonstrates one of the thing that drives me crazy with so much political discussion these days - on both the right and the left.  It's not enough to disagree with a policy, we have to attack the motives of the other side and make them the enemy to justify the righteousness of our beliefs.  Could it be that Joe sixpack liberal could *gasp* actually believe that promoting green jobs, curbing too big to fail banks or fighting climate change could be important issues that need to be addressed on their own merits?  Of course not.  Liberals could only care about them as part of a scheme to turn the country communist and line their own pockets.  

You haven't defined "the core economic philosophy of American liberalism", you've defined the core economic philosophy of politicians who want to get elected and need lots of money to do that.  If you think that liberals couldn't be just as vehemently opposed to the incestuous relationship between big government and big business than you need to head down to a Phish show and ask some people what they think about Wall Street these days.  The whole reason Brat won was because he convinced people that Cantor was in the pocket of big business and its lobbies and wasn't looking out for them.  You might even say they had an incestuous relationship, and last I checked Cantor was no liberal.   And that's why I think it's so interesting.  I'm sure conservatives like Brat and liberals might cite different reasons, see different causes and come up with different solutions to crony capitalism, but in the end, it's not just a conservative issue - it's something that cuts across ideology and actually unites liberals and conservatives.  Both sides are guilty of it yet both sides have constituencies that really want to do something about it.  I think libertarians and liberals have a lot more in common sometimes than they'd like to believe.

2014-06-13 1:01 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

I disagree..... The core economic philosophy of American liberalism is crony capitalism. I mean, I know liberals like to dress it up with euphemisms like "green jobs", "clean industry", "too big to fail", "climate change" or any other term to justify a centrally driven economy to funnel resources to the well connected. But in the end the foundation of liberal economics is the incestuous relationship between big government and big business.....The very definitions of crony capitalism..

I see both points, but I think to defend Drew a little bit,  I feel the establishment Liberals and Establishment Republicans both are heavy into crony capitalism, but when you get out into the core beliefs of people in both parties we fundamentally agree on personal liberties, curbing government spending, and a fair playing field.

The establishment liberals have their green jobs industries and the republicans have their military engine.  They both do the same things using scare tactics to justify the spending, but ultimately it's about propping up their buddies that put them in office.




By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.


2014-06-13 3:03 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by drewb8

Originally posted by chirunner134
Originally posted by tuwood

The establishment liberals have their green jobs industries and the republicans have their military engine.  They both do the same things using scare tactics to justify the spending, but ultimately it's about propping up their buddies that put them in office.

You are exactly right about this. It is only going to get worse. Eric Cantor raised 5 million for his primary election as an example. Typically the one who spends the most wins. Campaign contributions has gone from giving money because you believe in them to purely an investment with expect rate of return. I am not against some spending money it both of these situations. I feel it is something we need but do we need everything we are buying? is it worth the price we are paying? Probably not because I bet we are greatly over paying as apart of these paybacks.

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

I disagree..... The core economic philosophy of American liberalism is crony capitalism. I mean, I know liberals like to dress it up with euphemisms like "green jobs", "clean industry", "too big to fail", "climate change" or any other term to justify a centrally driven economy to funnel resources to the well connected. But in the end the foundation of liberal economics is the incestuous relationship between big government and big business.....The very definitions of crony capitalism..

You left out that they like to wear puppy fur coats too.  

This is ridiculous and demonstrates one of the thing that drives me crazy with so much political discussion these days - on both the right and the left.  It's not enough to disagree with a policy, we have to attack the motives of the other side and make them the enemy to justify the righteousness of our beliefs.  Could it be that Joe sixpack liberal could *gasp* actually believe that promoting green jobs, curbing too big to fail banks or fighting climate change could be important issues that need to be addressed on their own merits?  Of course not.  Liberals could only care about them as part of a scheme to turn the country communist and line their own pockets.  

You haven't defined "the core economic philosophy of American liberalism", you've defined the core economic philosophy of politicians who want to get elected and need lots of money to do that.  If you think that liberals couldn't be just as vehemently opposed to the incestuous relationship between big government and big business than you need to head down to a Phish show and ask some people what they think about Wall Street these days.  The whole reason Brat won was because he convinced people that Cantor was in the pocket of big business and its lobbies and wasn't looking out for them.  You might even say they had an incestuous relationship, and last I checked Cantor was no liberal.   And that's why I think it's so interesting.  I'm sure conservatives like Brat and liberals might cite different reasons, see different causes and come up with different solutions to crony capitalism, but in the end, it's not just a conservative issue - it's something that cuts across ideology and actually unites liberals and conservatives.  Both sides are guilty of it yet both sides have constituencies that really want to do something about it.  I think libertarians and liberals have a lot more in common sometimes than they'd like to believe.




The only way to cut crony capitalism is to reduce the power of government. The less influence Washington has, the less ability it has to direct resources to crony big business.

What got me so frustrated with your comment is the thought that increasing the power and size of government reduces the practice of crony capitalism. Big business needs a big government to survive against small and more nimble competition. And big government needs big business to protect and grow its power. So it just blows my mind when people complain about crony capitalism and Wall Street yet vote for big government politicians.

It the end, I will always vote for a small government democrat over a big government republican.

Btw, I used to see Phish all the time in the local Burlington bars back in college in the late '80's early 90's. Those were very good times.









2014-06-13 3:04 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

That's a great point. I remember back when the TP was just getting started, it was around the same time that Occupy Wall Street was happening. There was this much-publicized meeting of the leaders of both organizations (to the extent that OWS had any actual leadership) and the two groups concluded that they actually had quite a bit of ideology in common in terms of anti-corporate welfare and cronyism.

To your earlier point, Paul or Cruz would have to figure out a way to wade through the social issues waters, because there are people who care very deeply, and vote down those lines.  I don't think most people would have a problem with a president who is "pro-choice" per se' if he's not going to act on his personal beliefs and work to push it out of the federal government and onto the state level because it kind of makes sense.




Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem voting for a person who wasn't himself pro-choice, but I'd want to be convinced that he didn't plan to push his pro-life agenda on the nation. Same goes for ssm. I get that it goes against many peoples religious upbringing and I don't expect them to embrace it.


2014-06-13 4:31 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Master
4101
20002000100
Denver
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by Jackemy1 

The only way to cut crony capitalism is to reduce the power of government. The less influence Washington has, the less ability it has to direct resources to crony big business. What got me so frustrated with your comment is the thought that increasing the power and size of government reduces the practice of crony capitalism. Big business needs a big government to survive against small and more nimble competition. And big government needs big business to protect and grow its power. So it just blows my mind when people complain about crony capitalism and Wall Street yet vote for big government politicians. It the end, I will always vote for a small government democrat over a big government republican. Btw, I used to see Phish all the time in the local Burlington bars back in college in the late '80's early 90's. Those were very good times.

Nice.  Next you'll tell me you knew Ben & Jerry when they just had an ice cream truck.

So this is an argument I can wrap my head around, rather than some blanket indictment and smear.  I can see better where you're coming from and I can agree with you up to a point.  Bigger govm't does mean more money sloshing around, more and bigger cracks to fall through, etc. and so more opportunities for shady dealings.  But at the same time, crony capitalism isn't exclusive to big government.  You hear all the time about some small town mayor giving his brother-in-law the contract to fix the potholes.  It's not on the same scale as the bailout of AIG, but does that make it any more defensible or less egregious?  

Big business doesn't have to have big government to survive.  Goldman Sachs will be fine whether or not there's a Dept. of Education or Commerce, or...  What was the third one?  Big business could use government for protection and power just as easily with a small government as a big one, as long as there's a lack of transparency and elected officials who need their money.  I think there's an unquestioned assumption that small government automatically = less intervention.  Maybe that's true, but probably not as much as people want to believe.  I get that there's more opportunities for govm't to direct resources in a bigger government but that's only one part of it  There's lots of other ways big businesses get what they want beside direct spending and it's just as easy for a small government to create a tax-loophole as a big one. For me, it's more about the size of the influence than the government.  As long as big businesses have a disproportionate amount of influence over politicians they're going to get what they want, regardless of how many federal employees there are. That's why I get frustrated when people say there's some "right" size for government.  Like a lot of things in life, it's not the size, it's how you use it.

2014-06-13 5:10 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

That's a great point. I remember back when the TP was just getting started, it was around the same time that Occupy Wall Street was happening. There was this much-publicized meeting of the leaders of both organizations (to the extent that OWS had any actual leadership) and the two groups concluded that they actually had quite a bit of ideology in common in terms of anti-corporate welfare and cronyism.

To your earlier point, Paul or Cruz would have to figure out a way to wade through the social issues waters, because there are people who care very deeply, and vote down those lines.  I don't think most people would have a problem with a president who is "pro-choice" per se' if he's not going to act on his personal beliefs and work to push it out of the federal government and onto the state level because it kind of makes sense.

Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem voting for a person who wasn't himself pro-choice, but I'd want to be convinced that he didn't plan to push his pro-life agenda on the nation. Same goes for ssm. I get that it goes against many peoples religious upbringing and I don't expect them to embrace it.

I'm the same way, I have pretty strong faith views, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem voting for someone who was an Atheist or Pro-Choice.

I guess I am technically an issues voter, but my issue is fiscal conservatism.  The social issues combined probably add up to about 5% of my consideration and the fiscal conservatism is the other 95%  

2014-06-16 11:58 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

2014-06-16 12:20 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

For me, It's really hard to put a name to a specific individual because it depends on the issues.  For example, somebody could be socially conservative, but fiscally liberal or vis versa.  A Republican could support SSM but also be pro-life or a Democrat could be pro-life and support SSM.  It would be hard to classify either one of them as "liberal" or "conservative" in my mind.

The national journal compiles a ranking (based on votes) every year of house and senate members to determine who are the most liberal and who are the most conservative.  They also break it down on Social/Economic/Foreign policy votes.  There are a bunch of republicans and Democrats who are right in the middle.

It's not perfect by any means, but you can glean what you want from it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-vote-ratings

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-vote-ratings

 



Edited by tuwood 2014-06-16 12:23 PM
2014-06-16 1:46 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Well tony- I looked at the list.

So- the most liberal GOP senators are Lisa Murkowsky, Susan Collins, John McCain, roy Blunt and Lindsay Graham.

 

And, as McCain is my state's senator... I guess I would agree with Jack- yes, he's very dishonest, a political grandstander and hyper partisan.

but Liberal?  he he he.  



2014-06-16 2:19 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by morey000

Well tony- I looked at the list.

So- the most liberal GOP senators are Lisa Murkowsky, Susan Collins, John McCain, roy Blunt and Lindsay Graham.

 

And, as McCain is my state's senator... I guess I would agree with Jack- yes, he's very dishonest, a political grandstander and hyper partisan.

but Liberal?  he he he.  

lol, yeah it's really weird to try and put various labels on these guys.  I personally think of McCain as "very liberal" but my context is on the fiscal issues.  I feel he's a big spending, big government, pro-wall street, establishment guy.

There's no question that socially, he's fairly conservative but I really don't care about the social issues near as much as I care about the fiscal issues.  Others are completely the opposite of me and they could give a hoot about the fiscal issues and care dearly about the social issues so their perspective and opinion would be completely different than mine.

2014-06-16 5:39 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by tuwood

... I personally think of McCain as "very liberal" but my context is on the fiscal issues.  I feel he's a big spending, big government, pro-wall street, establishment guy.

You may 'feel' that, but I don't believe it to be at all correct.  McCain isn't a spender.  In fact- he has long been on the 'no earmarks' kick.  He regularly shuts down any government program that might benefit his state of arizona.  Especially in the years around his presidential bid, as he didn't want to be saddled with a dime of "bridge to nowhere" publicity.  

However- he's a hawk.  In that he is always a proponent of sending troops into every problem around the world.  So- I guess that might constitute being a big government spender- but it's not on social programs.  I put 'big military' and a meddling foreign policy into the GOP camp, although I do realize there is a libertarian wing of the GOP that doesn't follow this doctrine.

I see McCain more of a political opportunist than a politician that is ideologically driven.  So- he'll take any opinion that suits the moment where he feels like he can take a jab at the other side.  for instance- he was for the Bergdahl swap before he was against it... and lest he forget, he personally was released in a prisoner swap deal.

 

2014-06-16 5:49 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by tuwood

... I personally think of McCain as "very liberal" but my context is on the fiscal issues.  I feel he's a big spending, big government, pro-wall street, establishment guy.

You may 'feel' that, but I don't believe it to be at all correct.  McCain isn't a spender.  In fact- he has long been on the 'no earmarks' kick.  He regularly shuts down any government program that might benefit his state of arizona.  Especially in the years around his presidential bid, as he didn't want to be saddled with a dime of "bridge to nowhere" publicity.  

However- he's a hawk.  In that he is always a proponent of sending troops into every problem around the world.  So- I guess that might constitute being a big government spender- but it's not on social programs.  I put 'big military' and a meddling foreign policy into the GOP camp, although I do realize there is a libertarian wing of the GOP that doesn't follow this doctrine.

I see McCain more of a political opportunist than a politician that is ideologically driven.  So- he'll take any opinion that suits the moment where he feels like he can take a jab at the other side.  for instance- he was for the Bergdahl swap before he was against it... and lest he forget, he personally was released in a prisoner swap deal.

 

Yeah, i should have been a little more specific.

My thoughts on him being a big spender are heavily slanted towards his support of TARP, auto bailout, mortgage bailout, AIG Bailout, and the defense machine as a whole.  I'm sure there's others I'm missing.

You are correct, that he's against various little things and ear-marks which many "big spending" republicans are, but they sure manage to spend a ton of money on really big things that dwarf the bridges to nowhere.  

2014-06-16 5:50 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by morey000

I see McCain more of a political opportunist than a politician that is ideologically driven.  So- he'll take any opinion that suits the moment where he feels like he can take a jab at the other side.  for instance- he was for the Bergdahl swap before he was against it... and lest he forget, he personally was released in a prisoner swap deal.




While it might make you look good to your base to me that is one of the things that frustrates me about politics. You can not even give a little credit but have to attack everything? All it does it helps fuel the divide.
2014-06-19 3:33 PM
in reply to: drewb8

User image

Science Nerd
28760
50005000500050005000200010005001001002525
Redwood City, California
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

Coming in to this late, but I'll add my thoughts as a resident of Cantor's district.

1. Virginia has an open primary.  You don't have to be a registered republican to vote.  I'm not, so I voted against Cantor.  Many other Democrat-leaning friends also voted against Cantor.

Why?

2. People in the 7th District want Eric Cantor out.  That applies to Republicans and Democrats.  He's not doing anything to benefit our district and is never around.  Why should he continue to represent us.

From my perspective, it wasn't about immigration or conservatism.  A lot of people just want someone other than Cantor.



2014-06-23 10:53 AM
in reply to: Artemis

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by Artemis

Originally posted by drewb8

One interesting thing to me is that Brat's big thing, the thing that won him the really conservative voters which won him the election, wasn't immigration, his core message was anti-corporate welfare, anti-"crony-capitalism", and that's something that many liberals are vehemently opposed to too, although for different reasons.

Coming in to this late, but I'll add my thoughts as a resident of Cantor's district.

1. Virginia has an open primary.  You don't have to be a registered republican to vote.  I'm not, so I voted against Cantor.  Many other Democrat-leaning friends also voted against Cantor.

Why?

2. People in the 7th District want Eric Cantor out.  That applies to Republicans and Democrats.  He's not doing anything to benefit our district and is never around.  Why should he continue to represent us.

From my perspective, it wasn't about immigration or conservatism.  A lot of people just want someone other than Cantor.

I heard something on the radio several days after the primary that there was a successful effort to re-district his congressional district in order to make it "more conservative" as well.  Obviously we don't know, but I thought that would be an interesting "backfire" for sure if it contributed to him getting whacked in the primaries.  

2014-06-27 8:05 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

 

Dick Lugar. Oh, wait, no.  He got sniped from the right in the last primary, and then his idiot challenger got obliterated in the general.  Much like will happen here with Cantor.

the TEA party cannot die fast enough.  Unless some hyper-liberal equivalent suddenly emerges and starts doing the same crap on the left.  And then the rest of us can just ignore the noise from both extremes, an start getting some sh%* done around here.  I've had it.

2014-06-27 9:39 AM
in reply to: moondawg14

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by moondawg14

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

 

Dick Lugar. Oh, wait, no.  He got sniped from the right in the last primary, and then his idiot challenger got obliterated in the general.  Much like will happen here with Cantor.

the TEA party cannot die fast enough.  Unless some hyper-liberal equivalent suddenly emerges and starts doing the same crap on the left.  And then the rest of us can just ignore the noise from both extremes, an start getting some sh%* done around here.  I've had it.

From what I've read David Brat's district is pretty conservative and his opponent Jack Trammell as recent as two weeks ago was running on a homemade webpage, using a gmail address, with no paid staff and zero funds raised.  Obviously anything can happen, but I think the optimism of the left in trying to write off anyone who isn't a party machine centrist is kind of silly.

Brat isn't even a Tea Party guy, but the media is trying to label him as one and the "establishment" Tea Party is trying to do the same but he had no support from the Tea Party at all on his primary run.

Just out of curiosity, you seem to have a disdain for the "Tea Party" movement.  What is it you dislike so much about it?

Compared to the platforms of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party I have a lot more in common with the Tea Party platform than I do either of those.
I'm more in tune with the Libertarian platform for sure, so I'd go Libertarian, Tea Party, Republican, and then Democrat if I were to order them matching my philosophy on government.

 

2014-06-27 6:47 PM
in reply to: moondawg14

User image

Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by moondawg14

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

 

Dick Lugar. Oh, wait, no.  He got sniped from the right in the last primary, and then his idiot challenger got obliterated in the general.  Much like will happen here with Cantor.

the TEA party cannot die fast enough.  Unless some hyper-liberal equivalent suddenly emerges and starts doing the same crap on the left.  And then the rest of us can just ignore the noise from both extremes, an start getting some sh%* done around here.  I've had it.

 

Cantor was defeated in the primary wasn't he?

I'm curious what sh%* it is that you want done around here? 

Our system of government was set up to make it difficult to make changes. My understanding for that is if we are going to make changes, pass new laws that we need to have a consensus  of a majority of a couple of different governing bodies to prevent change that didn't have a lot of support and provide some stability in our country. Do you see it differently?

 

2014-06-30 8:20 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.




Just getting back to BT after a few busy weeks....sorry for delays in responses.

I just don't agree that working with the other side equals "betterment of the country".

The Washington elite has drilled that mantra into the voters heads and we follow lock step like sheep. But all that has produced is a bureaucratic Leviathan of a federal government that solves nothing, creates dependency, and protects the establishment. And to me....that is not better for the Country.





Edited by Jackemy1 2014-06-30 8:21 AM


2014-06-30 10:38 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.




Just getting back to BT after a few busy weeks....sorry for delays in responses.

I just don't agree that working with the other side equals "betterment of the country".

The Washington elite has drilled that mantra into the voters heads and we follow lock step like sheep. But all that has produced is a bureaucratic Leviathan of a federal government that solves nothing, creates dependency, and protects the establishment. And to me....that is not better for the Country.



And the alternative is? No matter who gets elected, even if the candidate is some idealized libertartian fantasy, he or she is still going to have to work with whatever the other sides are to get things done. Perpetual, intractable gridlock isn't solving anything either, last time I looked.
2014-06-30 11:12 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

Just getting back to BT after a few busy weeks....sorry for delays in responses. I just don't agree that working with the other side equals "betterment of the country". The Washington elite has drilled that mantra into the voters heads and we follow lock step like sheep. But all that has produced is a bureaucratic Leviathan of a federal government that solves nothing, creates dependency, and protects the establishment. And to me....that is not better for the Country.
And the alternative is? No matter who gets elected, even if the candidate is some idealized libertartian fantasy, he or she is still going to have to work with whatever the other sides are to get things done. Perpetual, intractable gridlock isn't solving anything either, last time I looked.

With a representative democracy we are supposed to have people that vote based on their constituents beliefs.  If the country is split 50/50 on an issue then it should not be placed into law, period.  It's not a matter of working across the aisle, it's about changing the country's view on the issue at hand if you want it to be law.

ACA is a good example of what happens when one side jams something through without any support from the other side.  It's very divisive and when the other side loses control of part of the government (house of representatives) it becomes paralyzed.  It wasn't a matter of working across the aisle with ACA because constituents in the opposing party states didn't want it passed, so they tried to stop it.

If universal healthcare is such a great idea, then it has to be sold to the people first and then the representatives will follow.

2014-06-30 11:32 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.

Just getting back to BT after a few busy weeks....sorry for delays in responses. I just don't agree that working with the other side equals "betterment of the country". The Washington elite has drilled that mantra into the voters heads and we follow lock step like sheep. But all that has produced is a bureaucratic Leviathan of a federal government that solves nothing, creates dependency, and protects the establishment. And to me....that is not better for the Country.
And the alternative is? No matter who gets elected, even if the candidate is some idealized libertartian fantasy, he or she is still going to have to work with whatever the other sides are to get things done. Perpetual, intractable gridlock isn't solving anything either, last time I looked.

I would say there are a number of things the Federal Government has passed or created that we, as a country would be better off today had nothing been done. 

Our founding fathers set this system up so it would be difficult to make changes and that if changes were made it would require, as tuwood mentioned a majority consensus. Now, one is seen as an obstructionists if you're not for increasing the power and size of the Federal government and it''s ability to control what the people do. Which, I'm pretty sure isn't what they fought and died for in the revolutionary war. ymmv

Now as far "some idealized libertarian fantasy" I would suggest that if you see people who are truly committed to following the constitution and fiscal responsibility win primaries and elections against the establishment Republican & Democratic party that even they will for fear of being kicked out of office be more inclined to do the peoples bidding rather than what we've seen both parties do in the majority of my lifetime.  

2014-07-01 10:30 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by morey000

Originally posted by Jackemy1... By liberals, I didn't just mean democrats......There are plenty of liberal Republicans as well. And there is a good case that the liberal Republicans are worse because they are dishonest to their constituents.

Can you name me a few?  Maybe ones in the House or Senate?  

I just have this feeling that these are the ones I'd probably consider 'reasonable' members of the GOP that will work with the other side for the betterment of the country... Having a difficult time finding them.  Please assist.




Just getting back to BT after a few busy weeks....sorry for delays in responses.

I just don't agree that working with the other side equals "betterment of the country".

The Washington elite has drilled that mantra into the voters heads and we follow lock step like sheep. But all that has produced is a bureaucratic Leviathan of a federal government that solves nothing, creates dependency, and protects the establishment. And to me....that is not better for the Country.



And the alternative is? No matter who gets elected, even if the candidate is some idealized libertartian fantasy, he or she is still going to have to work with whatever the other sides are to get things done. Perpetual, intractable gridlock isn't solving anything either, last time I looked.


What is the alternative.....

I read this little analogy. If we are at a one hundred foot chasm and one guy says we need to build a 100 foot bridge to get across, that makes him an "extremist". And the other guy says there is no need to get across the chasm and therefore no need to build a bridge. That guy is labeled an "extremist" as well. So the third guys is a centrist and demand a compromise be made and a 50 foot bridge be built ending in thin air. It seems to me that the centrist is the one who lives in fantasy and the two extremes have a better grasp in reality even though there is strong disagreement.

This country is filled with 50 foot bridges built by Washington.

The word extreme has been used as a negative connotation as a rigid ideologue. But what really is an extremist other than someone who takes straight line positions based on well defined principles. The right is based in individual right, personal responsibility, and liberty while the left is based in egalitarianism, social justice, and the welfare of the whole is greater that of the individual. Both sides take a relatively straight lined position because they have both developed reasonably consistent ways to see the world.

Then you have these independents that believe that borrowing a little from each side somehow makes them more enlightened yet in reality they stand for nothing. They take the politically expedient position and grab bits and pieces from both sides in the name of compromise. They have no thought out set of principles, no consistency, and no clue what to do. The end result is a lot of 50 foot bridges.












New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Eric Cantor defeated by TEA Party rival Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

IRS To Tea Party: Sorry We Targeted You And Your Tax Status Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by DanielG
Views: 8155 Posts: 95

2013-07-19 12:03 PM tuwood

Ricin Guy - TEA Party Member Pages: 1 2

Started by DanielG
Views: 4831 Posts: 46

2013-04-24 10:53 AM DanielG
RELATED ARTICLES
date : October 14, 2010
author : FitWerx
comments : 0
A review of the Shimano 105 vesus SRAM Rival Time Trial component group differences.
 
date : July 11, 2007
author : AMSSM
comments : 1
Recent studies have demonstrated that moderate to mild levels of caffeine (less than 300mg) do not promote dehydration during exercise.
date : August 31, 2004
author : malvey
comments : 0
Your Past is History but the present determines your future. From the book 'Be here now' by Dr. Richard Alpert