Conquer Club

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

If you want to save the USA you have to vote republican for president and democrat for house/senate.

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency continued Guantanamo and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops.

If you look at the graphic, this just goes to show that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same thing. They may talk the talk during the elections, but once they are elected, nothing changes.

SSDP - Same Shit, Different President

bedub1 wrote:http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

If you want to save the USA you have to vote republican for president and democrat for house/senate.

As outrageous as it may appear, civil libertarians and human rights supporters would have actually fared better under a Republican administration. Had a Bush or McCain presidency continued Guantanamo and introduced the NDAA, the Democratic Party would have howled from the rooftops.

If you look at the graphic, this just goes to show that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same thing. They may talk the talk during the elections, but once they are elected, nothing changes.

SSDP - Same Shit, Different President

I'm just going to not vote for either of the two main parties any more. Despite the howls of socialism for the last four years Obama has done very little to differentiate himself from Bush.

Lootifer literally made this same exact thread a few days ago.

inb4 shitstorm

lol.

dun worry bro, the more threads on how retarded the US political spectrum is the better

LIES!! GO BACK TO SLEEP AND WAKE UP WAVING THOSE AMERICAN FLAGS!!

Vote for Tea Party people and you will be able to save the USA.

Army of GOD wrote:Lootifer literally made this same exact thread a few days ago.

inb4 shitstorm

Oh it's from the political compass post. we should totally merge this into that unless people object.

Frigidus wrote:Obama has done very little to differentiate himself from Bush.

Exactly

Lootifer wrote:dun worry bro, the more threads on how retarded the US political spectrum is the better

It is easy to pick on

Power divided is power checked. Many over the last few years have called the right "the party of no" without even realizing that's exactly why in 2010 the Republicans had the biggest election win since 1938, to tell Obama "NO!". On a state level you might have to go back to reconstruction to find a whipping of similar proportions.

If the Democrats keep the Senate in 2012 and Romney wins, I think we will have a better chance to pass a budget. Of course the people who think that balancing the budget, or at least stop taking on new debt, are going to vote Republican. If Romney wins and the Republicans win, we have a much greater chance to pass a balanced budget amendment.

If however Obama wins and the Democrats retake a super majority in Congress, then there is no reason why a budget would be passed. That is exactly what we've already had, and a budget has not been passed in 3 years except for the balanced budget amendment from the Tea Party wing of the House, which the Senate rejected.

If people want the debt/deficit to be dealt with, they are going to want to vote Republican for president and Republican for Congress.

If the Republicans take all 3 "parts" it will be the end of the USA. When all the parts are in control by the same party, there are no checks and balances.

bedub1 wrote:If the Republicans take all 3 "parts" it will be the end of the USA. When all the parts are in control by the same party, there are no checks and balances.

Quoted so if the world doesn't end we can prove you were wrong

Night Strike wrote:Vote for Tea Party people and you will be able to save the USA.

Brainwashed much?

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Vote for Tea Party people and you will be able to save the USA.

Brainwashed much?

Nope. Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to continue the permanent growth of the federal government, so the only way to reign that in is by voting for Tea Party members. No other political group wants to spend responsibly.

bedub1 wrote:If the Republicans take all 3 "parts" it will be the end of the USA. When all the parts are in control by the same party, there are no checks and balances.

There is no balance with the Democrats in charge. They just want to spend and keep spending, and they will continue to keep doing that even if they only control 1 part of the government. They will just obstruct any cuts that responsible lawmakers try to enact, so they need to be voted out. Obama himself has already thrown out this rhetoric by threatening to veto any spending package that cuts spending by $17billion (I think that's the number). That amount of money is just a drop in the bucket to the amount of spending they're currently doing, yet we can't even cut that amount.

... Tell grandma and grandpa, in case they don't already know...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... LJY7JzXEIJ

... They are screwed come January, unless Mitt and Marco don't drop the axe on Obamacare.

...

Don't call Marc-Andre Fleury. He can't save shit.

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Vote for Tea Party people and you will be able to save the USA.

Brainwashed much?

Nope. Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to continue the permanent growth of the federal government, so the only way to reign that in is by voting for Tea Party members. No other political group wants to spend responsibly.

In the other thread, Scott told us the Tea Party had disbanded. I don't know who to believe.

why do people act like the tea party is different from the republicans? show me an independent tea party representative and I'll give your rhetoric some credence. Otherwise they are just a different flavor of republican.

I have to agree with Baron. Some members of the Tea Party may genuinely believe what the literature says, but for many it's just a sticker to put on campaign materials, so to suggest "just vote blanket Tea Party" may be an exercise in rhetorical stimulation. A case in point -

Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus

Jim de Mint
Patriot Act - voted Absolutely!

Jerry Moran
Patriot Act - voted Absolutely!

Mike Lee
Patriot Act - voted NO-WAY, JOSE NIETZSCHE

Rand Paul
Patriot Act - voted NO-WAY, JOSE NIETZSCHE

Baron Von PWN wrote:why do people act like the tea party is different from the republicans? show me an independent tea party representative and I'll give your rhetoric some credence. Otherwise they are just a different flavor of republican.

It is truly a tragedy the information has been so smeared and distorted. Suppose you can thank the PimpDavid party for that. Tea Partiers are mostly a quasi-Libertarian and fiscally conservative breed, and as you may know many have tendencies to be socially liberal in a few areas. I likewise have always had a hard time understanding why it was that people who hated the Bush Republicans of 2000-2006, 2008 so much seem to hate the Tea Party even more, and why they don't understand that we are fixing the problem that we agreed with the Democrats were problems and "fixing" the Republican party. I eventually came to realize that some Democrats, especially the Progressives, just do not like anything that is not the same as they are.

Largely, the Tea Party was born out of Republican and Independent voters (even Democrats make up 10% of the Tea Party) who did not like Bush or the Republicans of that era, and we were motivated mostly against Bushes atrocious spending levels and deficits, but for me you can throw the Patriot act and the Iraq war in there, which is when I learned very quickly that I was NOT a Republican. Bush did the bailouts, Obama did the stimulus package and spent the deficits (investments ) even higher, and surprise surprise the Tea Party exploded in support, and here we are today.... The more debt we take on, and the resulting higher the gas prices and food prices go, and the more money we print, and the more trillion dollar deficits we run and the more government grows, the bigger the Tea Party will grow, and this is a promise.

Let me ask you though, if you truly believe there is no difference between Republicans and Tea Partiers, why was there such a huge, ugly fight over the balanced budget amendment within the Republicans party, if they are all "just Republicans"? Why did the Tea Party wing of the House vote with the honest Democrats against the Patriot Act, while the shit Bushy Republicans joined the Boot-licking Obama Democrats to support the Patriot Act and keep it around so we could get NDAA through? There are plenty of examples, but I'm confident you know about these 2 off the top of your head. You are a pretty smart person. How do you explain these real differences within the Republican party, to the point where you have Republicans cursing the Tea Party and threatening them?

As for the Independent TP'ers, some have run independent, and we will see more run in 2012, along with a couple Tea Party Democrats. It's not a stretch when you consider what a blue-dog democrat is. The reason there are not more Independent Tea Party leaders, is because a third party candidates have not done particularly well historically. We don't have to reinvent our own system over 20 years, we can just run in Primaries and Caucus against Republicans. There is no mystery here. Although in 2010 the Tea Party did win third party elections, and came very close to winnin in many more. Joe Miller, Alaska, actually beat Murkowski in the Primary there, and elitist Murkowski was forced to run as a wright in (which she won).

For you, I will point out any Independent Tea Party candidates who run in 2012, and you know I will be 100% supporting the Tea Party Democrats who run.

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:why do people act like the tea party is different from the republicans? show me an independent tea party representative and I'll give your rhetoric some credence. Otherwise they are just a different flavor of republican.

It is truly a tragedy the information has been so smeared and distorted. Suppose you can thank the PimpDavid party for that. Tea Partiers are mostly a quasi-Libertarian and fiscally conservative breed, and as you may know many have tendencies to be socially liberal in a few areas. I likewise have always had a hard time understanding why it was that people who hated the Bush Republicans of 2000-2006, 2008 so much seem to hate the Tea Party even more, and why they don't understand that we are fixing the problem that we agreed with the Democrats were problems and "fixing" the Republican party. I eventually came to realize that some Democrats, especially the Progressives, just do not like anything that is not the same as they are.

Largely, the Tea Party was born out of Republican and Independent voters (even Democrats make up 10% of the Tea Party) who did not like Bush or the Republicans of that era, and we were motivated mostly against Bushes atrocious spending levels and deficits, but for me you can throw the Patriot act and the Iraq war in there, which is when I learned very quickly that I was NOT a Republican. Bush did the bailouts, Obama did the stimulus package and spent the deficits (investments ) even higher, and surprise surprise the Tea Party exploded in support, and here we are today.... The more debt we take on, and the resulting higher the gas prices and food prices go, and the more money we print, and the more trillion dollar deficits we run and the more government grows, the bigger the Tea Party will grow, and this is a promise.

Let me ask you though, if you truly believe there is no difference between Republicans and Tea Partiers, why was there such a huge, ugly fight over the balanced budget amendment within the Republicans party, if they are all "just Republicans"? Why did the Tea Party wing of the House vote with the honest Democrats against the Patriot Act, while the shit Bushy Republicans joined the Boot-licking Obama Democrats to support the Patriot Act and keep it around so we could get NDAA through? There are plenty of examples, but I'm confident you know about these 2 off the top of your head. You are a pretty smart person. How do you explain these real differences within the Republican party, to the point where you have Republicans cursing the Tea Party and threatening them?

As for the Independent TP'ers, some have run independent, and we will see more run in 2012, along with a couple Tea Party Democrats. It's not a stretch when you consider what a blue-dog democrat is. The reason there are not more Independent Tea Party leaders, is because a third party candidates have not done particularly well historically. We don't have to reinvent our own system over 20 years, we can just run in Primaries and Caucus against Republicans. There is no mystery here. Although in 2010 the Tea Party did win third party elections, and came very close to winnin in many more. Joe Miller, Alaska, actually beat Murkowski in the Primary there, and elitist Murkowski was forced to run as a wright in (which she won).

For you, I will point out any Independent Tea Party candidates who run in 2012, and you know I will be 100% supporting the Tea Party Democrats who run.

My question is mainly if they are so different from Republicans, why are they running as republicans?

Why not start their own party, hell they already have a name.

Yes some "tea party" republicans have made admirable stances in congress, but by an large they don't seem all that different. Let them take a real stand and try and cut it as their own party. Anything else and as I said just republicans now tea flavoured.

Baron Von PWN wrote:My question is mainly if they are so different from Republicans, why are they running as republicans?

Why not start their own party, hell they already have a name.

Yes some "tea party" republicans have made admirable stances in congress, but by an large they don't seem all that different. Let them take a real stand and try and cut it as their own party. Anything else and as I said just republicans now tea flavoured.

Because with the way that the US political system is set up, it's MUCH easier to change a party from within than to try to rise up as a 3rd party. The politicians have put in many rules to make it harder for 3rd party people to run for office, so it's easier to just beat those people in primaries.

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote: Vote for Tea Party people and you will be able to save the USA.

Brainwashed much?

Nope. Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to continue the permanent growth of the federal government, so the only way to reign that in is by voting for Tea Party members. No other political group wants to spend responsibly.

LOL

wrong target. The idea that this is about expanding government is wrong. The problem is too much power to a very few at the top.

Since when did it become America's responsibility to support the wealthy? Becuase that is what your platform is all about. Denying any helps to lower and middle class people as "too expensive" so the wealthy can get a few tax breaks and not have to pay much of anything for the many benefits they recieve indirectly and directly from the rest of us.

If you had asked any sensible person 40 years ago if being a right-minded American meant destroying Unions, eliminating any hope of universal health care, eviserating welfare and food stamps and tromping on birth control/family planning, you would have been laughed out of teh country. Homosexuality had not yet risen to most folks' consciousness and was something most people were not comfortable with, but the fact that it so quickly became a basic non -issue (do what you want, just don't make me participate) rather indicates it would not have garnered much support, either.

BUT... some brilliant right wingers realized that their economic "dreams" of promoting the rich and convincing America that supporting the wealthy would lead to their personnal prosperity would not work. (Remember how quickly trickle down failed! lead directly to Democratic power) So instead they targeted the social agenda... Mom pop, apple pie and no abortion/birth control or homosexuals allowed.

bedub1 wrote:If the Republicans take all 3 "parts" it will be the end of the USA. When all the parts are in control by the same party, there are no checks and balances.

Night Strike wrote: There is no balance with the Democrats in charge. They just want to spend and keep spending, and they will continue to keep doing that even if they only control 1 part of the government. They will just obstruct any cuts that responsible lawmakers try to enact, so they need to be voted out. Obama himself has already thrown out this rhetoric by threatening to veto any spending package that cuts spending by $17billion (I think that's the number). That amount of money is just a drop in the bucket to the amount of spending they're currently doing, yet we can't even cut that amount.

Skip the Democrat/Republican pretense. There is no check when we allow the wealthy alone to dictate. As long as money is allowed to speak on equal terms with mere voices, it will overshadow the voice in every front. Our freedom was sold by people unwilling to do the work of checking and protesting those in power.. who wanted quick solutions of lower taxes, a tiny bit more money in their wallets today instead of worrying about the future.

Oh yeah.. and if we wind up destroying the environment in the process, big deal.. those with means have their own islands of self-sustaining acreage. (or so some think...)