Trouble for the Tea Party - Poll Numbers

reply to post by xuenchen


The republican party is dying due to their sole demographic dwindling in numbers. The Tea Party is a sub-sect of the republican party and has a higher concentration of white men, so the TP is really going to go extinct.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Republicans ‘not generating enough angry white guys’

Graham told the The Washington Post that it’s just a matter of time before changing demographics catch up with his party. “The demographics race we’re losing badly [sic],” the senior senator from South Carolina explained. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

www.rawstory.com...

It'll take a few decades though.

Nonwhite U.S. Births Become the Majority for First Time

Minority babies outnumbered white newborns in 2011 for the first time in U.S. history, the latest milestone in a demographic shift that’s transforming the nation.

The percentage of nonwhite newborns rose to 50.4 percent of children younger than a year old from April 2010 to July 2011, while non-Hispanic whites fell to 49.6 percent, the U.S. Census Bureau said today.

www.bloomberg.com...

Democrats do not have a demographic problem, they have whites and the majority of the minority vote.

You keep showing those staged videos !!

I haven't seen any staged videos, paranoid much? Or denial?

reply to post by xuenchen


Communism isn't socialism.

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production and governing themselves.

Socialism means a classless society. Unlike under capitalism, where a tiny minority owns the vast majority of wealth and the means of producing it, everyone would share equally in the ownership of all the means of production, and everyone able to do so would work. There wouldn't be separate classes of owners and workers. The economy would be administered by the workers themselves through industrially based, democratic "associations of free and equal producers," as Marx described it.

The workers collectively would decide what they want produced and how they want it produced. They would control their own workplaces and make the decisions governing their particular industry. With the abolition of the capitalist expropriation of the lion's share of workers' product, all workers would receive, directly or indirectly, the full value of the products they create, minus only the deductions needed to maintain and improve society's facilities of production and distribution.

Far from being a state-controlled society, socialism would be a society WITHOUT A STATE. Marx once said that "the existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery." Consonant with this truth, socialism would have a GOVERNMENT, but not a separate, coercive body standing above society itself -- a state. The people themselves, through the democratic associations of workers, would BE the government.

www.deleonism.org...

The lady in the video unknowingly advocated for libertarian socialism. ie; no government with the workers owning the means of productions. Libertarianism actually started as a left wing ideology and then was hijacked by right wing extremists.

reply to post by 3chainz


Yes of course.

I get it now.

Originally posted by beezzer
Speaking AS a Tea Party member, I resent the term fascist when all we want is personal responsibility, smaller government, and a return to individuality.

Anything else is bull-poopoo when used to describe the Tea Party.

You want a smaller government but have zero qualms about using that government to force through your extremist agenda.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Or are you so blinded that you just don't care?

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by Happy1

 

44 Tea Party members voted for the NDAA

clerk.house.gov...

edit on 1-11-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

And Obama signed it...on December 31st...when everyone wasn't looking.

Lima-1, out.

reply to post by 3chainz

Dear 3chainz,

Mr. Confusion back again, hoping to get things cleared up. Where am I going wrong?

There are fourteen freshman Tea Partiers. Your story says four of them are in trouble in the polls. I assume, therefore, that the other ten aren't in trouble. Of the four you cite, three are regarded as "toss-ups." Even Obama is rated as a "toss-up."

So there is one Tea Party freshman in trouble out of fourteen? The Tea Party seems to be doing better than anybody else, where's the problem?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by OperationIraqiFailure

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by Happy1

 

44 Tea Party members voted for the NDAA

clerk.house.gov...

edit on 1-11-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

And Obama signed it...on December 31st...when everyone wasn't looking.

Lima-1, out.

If you condemn Obama for signing it, you should condemn them for voting for it. If not it just shows you could care less about the constitution or America. Political hackery.

reply to post by charles1952


A bunch were already voted out in 2010. Four of them are in trouble now. What don't you get?

Originally posted by 3chainz

Originally posted by OperationIraqiFailure

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by Happy1

 

44 Tea Party members voted for the NDAA

clerk.house.gov...

edit on 1-11-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

And Obama signed it...on December 31st...when everyone wasn't looking.

Lima-1, out.

If you condemn Obama for signing it, you should condemn them for voting for it. If not it just shows you could care less about the constitution or America. Political hackery.

edit on 2-11-2012 by 3chainz because: (no reason given)

3chainz, I'm amazed that your posts don't get flagged while everyone that disagree's with you does. But, I'll continue on...

You support and are voting for Obama. How can you call any group/person/entity out on politics knowing that you support a President who has, on record:

1. Lied about bringing troops home the first day he became President



2. Murdered 2 American citizens without due process



3. Signed legislation revoking rights of citizens



Why do you attack the Tea Party when they are only one part of the problem, 3chainz? This is what I don't understand and why I've been trying to get an answer from you, sir.

And before you attack the Fox videos, realize that Judge Napolitano attacks Republican Lindsey Graham with his own words.

Remember that I do not endorse the Tea Party nor Mittens Romney.

Lima-1, out.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by beezzer
Speaking AS a Tea Party member, I resent the term fascist when all we want is personal responsibility, smaller government, and a return to individuality.

Anything else is bull-poopoo when used to describe the Tea Party.

You want a smaller government but have zero qualms about using that government to force through your extremist agenda.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Or are you so blinded that you just don't care?

Huh?

Explain!

reply to post by 3chainz

Dear 3chainz,

A bunch were already voted out in 2010. Four of them are in trouble now. What don't you get?

I thought it would help me to do a little more research, so I stopped by Wiki.
en.wikipedia.org...
After the 2010 elections there were 61 members of the Tea Party caucus. There had been more. Five members decided to leave the caucus, but stayed in Congress. Two left Congress for other campaigns. Three were not re-elected. Three, out of more than sixty. I don't believe that counts as a "bunch."

It looks like the Tea Party caucus is a path to success and long life in Congress, not the other way around.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by OperationIraqiFailure


I do not support Obama. Stop peddling this myth.

I'm a leftist and Obama is right wing. Conflict of interest.

Why do you attack the Tea Party when they are only one part of the problem, 3chainz? This is what I don't understand and why I've been trying to get an answer from you, sir.

I've dissed Obama on signing the NDAA, kill list, and other things.

reply to post by charles1952




Tea Party insurgent Christine O'Donnell defeated GOP establishment candidate Mike Castle in Delaware's Republican Senate primary in 2010. O'Donnell lost in the state's general election contest to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons.

Before winning another term in the 2010 midterm election, Sen. Lisa Murkowski was defeated by Tea Party-backed Joe Miller in Alaska's race for the Republican Senate nomination. Murkowski mounted a successful write-in campaign to keep her sea

Tea Party-backed Sharron Angle crushed GOP establishment pick Sue Lowden's political ambitions in Nevada's GOP Senate primary in 2010. Angle proved unsuccessful in her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the general election.

]GOP establishment candidate Jane Norton was defeated by Tea Party-backed Ken Buck in Colorado's 2010 Senate GOP primary. Buck ultimately proved unsuccessful in his bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

More will be conquered this election, popularity is dwindling.