The Tea Party (Left Branch)

[parocks]

The left branch of the tea party is pretty much us. The people who think like us.

ANTIWAR #1 100%
LEGALIZE IT #2 100%
and then other stuff that doesn't change either but you don't mention that at all.
Not an educational campaign. in it to win it. A handful of issues that we like and democrats already like. That's your message. Lamont beat Lieberman in the D primary.

There are a lot of antiwar dems right here, ron paul supporters. a lot of the more traditional ron paul supporters are tea partiers. everyone here is surprised when they get a great reception at a tea party event. They shouldn't be. There could be passive Ron Paul fans that just assumed that the tea party was a continuation of the tea party day. That was the biggest Ron Paul day. Maybe people just liked "tea party" and contributed on that basis, or in part on that basis.

Anyway, it seems that Ron Paul is talking directly to fewer people that he was in 2007-8.

Run the guerrilla ron paul style revolution banners, full on ron paul style campaign, but at the left, in house and senate races.

But it's tea party left, and not ron paul this or that. Because tea party is a good brand name. or liberal tea party, or progressive tea party. I like left, it's easier. left and right.

We'll "listen to the people". We get a left one in there or a right one in there, or both. If we get both, they can be really civil and cordial. Hype up the campaign. We will have won if we get both left and right. And then we could have real fun.
If there's an incumbent, we can say "the incumbent sucks so bad. One of us is going to have to drop out. (if necessary) Then they can say. Hey, we're listening to the people. We're gonna do an AI style series of questions that you can vote on. and we can get the results of them. And then we can put the positions in the candidate we want. This is what the voters decided. So, if we want promarijuana, we only need it on there once. The left probably. If we want antiwar, the left candidate takes it.

Then we say, well, I think our Republican the tea party right, should run against the Dem incumbent who is running as an Independent. We have the Democrat Party sending emails attacking him on antiwar. Democrats were in charge, fully, for 2 years. They could've gotten out of Iraq by now. I guess you guys are just like the Republicans. War all the time. OUT NOW. Plus, much much less government. It's 100% Ron Paul, in the prettiest package we can find. And we win easily. There are a lot of people who are sitting on the sidelines.

What do you all think?

[wgadget]

I have a feeling Obama is going to question the Tea Party members on their war patronage soon. It will be interesting. Hopefully, one of "ours" will speak up and let the world know that all TPs are not created equal.

[LibertyEagle]

The left branch of the tea party is pretty much us. The people who think like us.

Surely you're kidding, aren't you? Please tell me you are. I don't have a leftist bone in my body. Sorry, nope.


YouTube - Types of Government, Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY)


But it's tea party left, and not ron paul this or that. Because tea party is a good brand name. or liberal tea party, or progressive tea party. I like left, it's easier. left and right.

I think you need to do some research on where the term "progressive" came from. That's what I think. Hint: It ain't good. You couldn't be farther away from what Ron Paul actually believes in.

Note: If you are trying to differentiate us from the Neocons, the neocons are not on the right at all. They are Trotskyites. They are very much advocates of big government and it's inherent force. They are very much on the left side of the scale.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Progressive could be good if we were progressive to getting our constitution back, or would that be regressive? hmmnnn....

[FrankRep]

The left branch of the tea party is pretty much us. The people who think like us.

Your political spectrum is not correct. The "Left" is Big Government and "Right" is Small Government.

[LibertyEagle]

Progressive could be good if we were progressive to getting our constitution back, or would that be regressive? hmmnnn....

lol. Yeah, well, I guess it could be, except for the fact that CP-USA and the Marxists used the label to represent their beliefs. ha ha.

No, I don't think we should call ourselves "progressives". :p

[dean.engelhardt]

Your political spectrum is not correct. The "Left" is Big Government and "Right" is Small Government.

Many that consider themselves "Right" support Partiot Act, Drug War, War on Terror ........ My thought process is that small government takes a fiscal conservative with a social liberal twist. Small government should mean getting out of people'e personal lives.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

[Seraphim]

Many that consider themselves "Right" support Partiot Act, Drug War, War on Terror ........ My thought process is that small government takes a fiscal conservative with a social liberal twist. Small government should mean getting out of people'e personal lives.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

I agree.

[specsaregood]

This thread is one big example of why labels suck.

[FrankRep]

Many that consider themselves "Right" support Partiot Act, Drug War, War on Terror ........ My thought process is that small government takes a fiscal conservative with a social liberal twist. Small government should mean getting out of people'e personal lives.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz

Patriot Act sounds BIG Government to me. Extreme Right Wing is Anarchy.


YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[pcosmar]

This thread is one big example of why labels suck.

yup,

I'll stick with the "Angry American" Wing.

works for me,
:cool:

[erowe1]

I think the right-left dichotomy naturally causes confusion. But if we're going to use it, I'd prefer to say we're the far-right branch of the tea party. Most of the more moderate tea partiers hold conservative views on a few issues, but they don't share our right-wing stance on things like drug legalization and noninterventionism.

[parocks]

No No No, I don't think you get what I'm saying.

I'm not talking Ron Paul here.

I'm not talking the "Left" as in the real left.

The people here don't like the conservative tea party that much.

I'm not speaking for everybody.

I'm talking about the Anti war dems who call everyone a neocon.

I'm saying take the positions that are right here. Take the antiwar that the Republican party just will not have, and take that whole package at the Democrats.

Ron Paul is the tea party left. Antiwar. Promarijuana.

I'm not trying to make semantic arguments.

So, Gunny runs against Alvin Greene in the Primary and wins. He says "I'm antiwar 100%. I'm promarijuana 100%. And my opponent isn't.
There's no further ideological bent to it at all. If Gunny thinks he can win votes in a Democrat primary by talking up 2nd Amendment, fine. Basically, it's whatever he wants, as long as it's antiwar and promarijuana, 2 groups that are underserved on the Democrat side.



Surely you're kidding, aren't you? Please tell me you are. I don't have a leftist bone in my body. Sorry, nope.


YouTube - Types of Government, Explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY)



I think you need to do some research on where the term "progressive" came from. That's what I think. Hint: It ain't good. You couldn't be farther away from what Ron Paul actually believes in.

Note: If you are trying to differentiate us from the Neocons, the neocons are not on the right at all. They are Trotskyites. They are very much advocates of big government and it's inherent force. They are very much on the left side of the scale.

[ChaosControl]

Why is "anti-war" a left position?
The big government people originally are the pro-war peeps.

There isn't left vs right. There is big government vs little government.

[parocks]

You didn't read and understand my post at all, did you?

I bet you just read one sentence.


Your political spectrum is not correct. The "Left" is Big Government and "Right" is Small Government.

PEOPLE
HERE
SHOULD
PRIMARY
DEMOCRATS
IF
YOU
DON'T
LIKE
PROWAR
REPUBLICANS

[parocks]

There is a Democrat Party and a Republican Party.

This year, there are anti establishment tea party candidates running in the Republican Party.

In 2012, there should be anti establishment tea party candidates running in the Republican AND Democrat Parties.

The anti establishment ANTIWAR candidate runs in the DEMOCRAT party, because DEMOCRATS are the antiwar protesters, not Republicans.



Why is "anti-war" a left position?
The big government people originally are the pro-war peeps.

There isn't left vs right. There is big government vs little government.

[erowe1]

You didn't read and understand my post at all, did you?

I bet you just read one sentence.



PEOPLE
HERE
SHOULD
PRIMARY
DEMOCRATS
IF
YOU
DON'T
LIKE
PROWAR
REPUBLICANS

If your intent here was to present your idea in a way that is less susceptible to being misunderstood than whatever post you think Frank failed to understand, then this style of writing a verbless sentence with one word per line in all-caps, might not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

[parocks]

This isn't polisci 101.

If you're antiwar, you're a Democrat.

If you want to win, because Republicans don't like Antiwar.

I'm surprised I'm arguing about labels.

This is about how to get Ron Paul type people who are antiwar elected. Run in the D Primary. And talk about Antiwar and Promarijuana.

It's not that difficult a concept.



I think the right-left dichotomy naturally causes confusion. But if we're going to use it, I'd prefer to say we're the far-right branch of the tea party. Most of the more moderate tea partiers hold conservative views on a few issues, but they don't share our right-wing stance on things like drug legalization and noninterventionism.

[erowe1]

The anti establishment ANTIWAR candidate runs in the DEMOCRAT party, because DEMOCRATS are the antiwar protesters, not Republicans.

They are? Where are all these Democrat anti-war protesters?

[erowe1]

This isn't polisci 101.

If you're antiwar, you're a Democrat.

If you want to win, because Republicans don't like Antiwar.

I'm surprised I'm arguing about labels.

This is about how to get Ron Paul type people who are antiwar elected. Run in the D Primary. And talk about Antiwar and Promarijuana.

It's not that difficult a concept.

But all Ron Paul type people are anti-war. And they may have struggles in the GOP. But not nearly as bad as the struggles they'd have if they tried to run as Democrats. If they did run as Democrats, their anti-war pro-drug legalization stances might not hurt them quite as badly as in the Republican primaries, but they'd still hurt them more than help them, since Democrats are generally against legalization and don't seem to have a problem with war when there's a Democrat president. Meanwhile, their other positions would kill them.

[pcosmar]

You didn't read and understand my post at all, did you?

I bet you just read one sentence.



PEOPLE
HERE
SHOULD
PRIMARY
DEMOCRATS
IF
YOU
DON'T
LIKE
PROWAR
REPUBLICANS

Why?
The democrats are just ad Pro War as the Republicans.
They have started and maintained more wars historically.

I remain Independent.

[ChaosControl]

In 2012, there should be anti establishment tea party candidates running in the Republican AND Democrat Parties.

The anti establishment ANTIWAR candidate runs in the DEMOCRAT party, because DEMOCRATS are the antiwar protesters, not Republicans.

That makes sense. I've thought we should use both parties. And we should focus on the party that does best in our area. So if I were running for Senator, I should run as a D, but if I run for Representative in my district, I should run as a R. And then focus on the issues that appeal to that base. Run as a R then focus on financial issues, run as a D then focus on things like anti-war and civil liberties.

[parocks]

That's a fair assessment.

What do you suggest?

I find that people here have trouble understanding more than 5 words in a row.

Although people can discuss Libertarian Philosophy very well I must admit.


If your intent here was to present your idea in a way that is less susceptible to being misunderstood than whatever post you think Frank failed to understand, then this style of writing a verbless sentence with one word per line in all-caps, might not be the best way to accomplish that goal.

I'll try this one.

Many people here are saying that they can't support some tea partiers because they're insufficiently antiwar.

If you're that antiwar that you can't support our best candidates, you should run in the party that will vote for Antiwar candidates.

The Democrats will vote for Antiwar candidates. The Republicans won't.
The Democrats are the war protestors. The Republicans aren't.
If you want a politican who is antiwar to win, that politician should run as a Democrat.

How about.

ANTIWAR=DEMOCRAT
PROMARIJUANA=DEMOCRAT

it's obviously more complex than this, but I'm really trying to boil it down.

[specsaregood]

it's obviously more complex than this, but I'm really trying to boil it down.

Bob Conley did it, the state DNC pretty much endorsed the Republican candidate (Graham) instead.

[Southron]

It may be possible to run as a Democrat if you aren't widely known as a constitutionalist or libertarian.

Still, you couldn't allow yourself to be pinned down on certain issues, and you'd have to keep "on message".

[parocks]

Excellent. Now the tea party is pretty well established on the Republican side. People know what a tea party Republican means. There really isn't such a thing as a tea party Democrat. So, a definition of a tea party Democrat is invented by us.
It's basically someone a lot like Ron Paul, but one who talks a lot about Antiwar and Promarijuana (and I'll add "Exposing Conspiracies" maybe that's where the 9/11 truthers go). These candidates are the candidates with the Revolution banners.

There were 2 main styles in 2007-8. The 3 corner hat, tea party, revolutionary war imagery, and the homemade, grass roots, Revolution, Blimp, style. So, we have the imagery. And the message.



That makes sense. I've thought we should use both parties. And we should focus on the party that does best in our area. So if I were running for Senator, I should run as a D, but if I run for Representative in my district, I should run as a R. And then focus on the issues that appeal to that base. Run as a R then focus on financial issues, run as a D then focus on things like anti-war and civil liberties.

[parocks]

You're targeting 18-29 year olds. They hear ANTIWAR they hear PROMARIJUANA they vote for you. These are democrats. You put a cool stenciled thing up there on the overpass, those kids who liked Ron Paul so much, they're getting on board right away. They know it's all about Ron Paul. One main message of the tea party is that politicians suck. And a lot of them are not policiticans. You're trying to beat an old incumbent. You're young, Antiwar, good looking, Promarijuana, doesn't matter what kind of job you have, but if you have a job that trains you to be a good communicator, that's a good thing, will expose conspiracies and have a cool stencil banner. And there are candidates that have the similar message running against all the Democrats. The Republican Tea Party is doing its thing while the Democrat Tea Party is doing their thing.



It may be possible to run as a Democrat if you aren't widely known as a constitutionalist or libertarian.

Still, you couldn't allow yourself to be pinned down on certain issues, and you'd have to keep "on message".

[parocks]

Well, cool, i'm learning something here.

Conley, a antiwar D, won the D nomination against an establishment figure
and the DNC endorsed the R. Lindsey Graham?

Well, if we're talking about Grahams seat in SC, Conley runs again next time, and Graham gets primaried out by a standard, solid 20/20 CFL tea partier. Conley vs a 20/20 tea partier. We've won after the primary. Make sure there are sore loser laws in place.


Bob Conley did it, the state DNC pretty much endorsed the Republican candidate (Graham) instead.

[specsaregood]

You're targeting 18-29 year olds. They hear ANTIWAR they hear PROMARIJUANA they vote for you. These are democrats. You put a cool stenciled thing up there on the overpass, those kids who liked Ron Paul so much, they're getting on board right away. They know it's all about Ron Paul. One main message of the tea party is that politicians suck. And a lot of them are not policiticans. You're trying to beat an old incumbent. You're young, Antiwar, good looking, Promarijuana, doesn't matter what kind of job you have, but if you have a job that trains you to be a good communicator, that's a good thing, will expose conspiracies and have a cool stencil banner. And there are candidates that have the similar message running against all the Democrats. The Republican Tea Party is doing its thing while the Democrat Tea Party is doing their thing.

Because young people vote?

[Sola_Fide]

This isn't polisci 101.

If you're antiwar, you're a Democrat.

If you want to win, because Republicans don't like Antiwar.

I'm surprised I'm arguing about labels.

This is about how to get Ron Paul type people who are antiwar elected. Run in the D Primary. And talk about Antiwar and Promarijuana.

It's not that difficult a concept.




Bro,

Might I suggest that you read the forums for a couple weeks before you post anything else? You need to educate yourself about the different political philosophies out there before you continue to mislabel them.

[Danke]

Progressive could be good if we were progressive to getting our constitution back, or would that be regressive? hmmnnn....

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
C. S. Lewis

[specsaregood]

Well, cool, i'm learning something here.

Conley, a antiwar D, won the D nomination against an establishment figure
and the DNC endorsed the R. Lindsey Graham?

Well, if we're talking about Grahams seat in SC, Conley runs again next time, and Graham gets primaried out by a standard, solid 20/20 CFL tea partier. Conley vs a 20/20 tea partier. We've won after the primary. Make sure there are sore loser laws in place.

He was a Ron Paul Democrat.
You might find this of interest.
http://globalpolitician.com/25097-elections-poiltics


The Right-Wing Democrat Insurgent Campaign
Kyle Bristow - 8/11/2008

A candidate for the United States Senate is attempting to oust from Congress a notorious neoconservative cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq and amnesty for illegal aliens. That candidate is Democrat Bob Conley, and the conservative Taki’s Magazine (Takimag.com) said of him in an article entitled “A Ron Paul Democrat?” (6/18/08) that “his candidacy is perhaps the best hope for putting a paleoconservative in the U.S. Senate this November.”

Bob Conley is a 42-year-old engineer, commercial pilot, and flight instructor from North Myrtle Beach. He won the Democratic primary, and now is up against Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) this November. Graham has been called “the worst Republican senator” by The American Spectator, which is a conservative magazine.

Conley is like no other Democrat this election cycle. According to an article in The American Spectator entitled “What About Bob?” (7/7/08), Conley voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. On the issues, Conley opposes abortion, same-sex “marriage,” gun control, government bailouts of corporations, free-trade agreements like NAFTA, amnesty for illegal aliens, and wants to establish a moratorium for legal immigration. The article mentions that “Conley’s vanquished primary opponent lamented, ‘We’ve nominated a Republican in a Democratic primary.’”

Conley is a breath of fresh air in politics; as a true conservative, he has no problem criticizing leftist Republicans. Conley has called Senator Graham “Grahamnesty,” and refers to amnesty-supporter Senator John McCain (R-AZ) as “Senor McCain” and “Juan McCain.” According to an article on the website of South Carolina Now entitled “Conley Believes Frustrated GOP Voters in S.C. Will Give Him a Win” (5/31/08), Conley has referred to Senator Graham as “McCain’s Mini-Me.”

Even Sen. Graham understands that Conley is the real conservative in the race. In an article in the Charleston City Paper entitled “Democrat Bob Conley Offers Conservatives a Real Choice in November” (6/18/08), “When asked about his challenger Conley's conservatism, Graham said, ‘From what I can tell, he doesn't represent moderation. I represent a brand of conservatism that you will feel comfortable with.’”

Like mythic heroes, the odds of success are against Conley, but he still remains defiant. The Southern Political Report website reported in an article entitled “Senate Money Reveals Competitive Races” (7/28/08) that Sen. Graham has about $3.6 million in his war chest. Conley has only $1,000. OpenSecrets.org reports that Conley has not received any money from political action committees, while Graham has received $1.7 million. This is a political battle between David and Goliath, but there is hope, for David triumphed in the biblical story.

If you do not live in South Carolina and are therefore ineligible to vote for Conley, you can still donate to his campaign by visiting his website. Left-wing Senator Tom Daschle (D-ND) was ousted from Congress in 2004 when his opponent, John Thune, was able to raise money through out-of-state donations. God-willing, Graham will meet a similar political fate.

On Conley’s campaign website, www.BobConleyforSenate.com, there is written a statement that resembles something Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul would say: “Help me fight the neo-conservatives and advance the cause of liberty!”

[teacherone]

I get what he's saying--

Rand Paul,
Kokesh,
Amesh

all running under the R label.

Why?

If labels are insignificant to us, then we should be able to fund or run candidates with our views under the D.

That's what you mean right?

[newyearsrevolution08]

I get what he's saying--

Rand Paul,
Kokesh,
Amesh

all running under the R label.

Why?

If labels are insignificant to us, then we should be able to fund or run candidates with our views under the D.

That's what you mean right?

if the person has a track record voting for our constition as a dem then why not. It is about the stances and not the political party.