CNN: 1 in 10 Americans are tea partiers

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/tea.party.poll/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29

...and 27% of those who know of them support them. So you can let them know "the MSM" isn't downplaying their size or popularity

Ironically 1 in 10 registered voters turn out to vote. So if I do my math right... add this, divide this, carry that... it means that nothing will change and you and I are still paying the bills for those that don't work.

And just because I say they don't work do not think I am thinking of the lazy unemployed. I am also lumping politicians, corporate heads and automotive parts personnel (except for Gearheadotaku).

I went to a tea party.... thrown by my 7 year old niece though. I expect my niece's party to have about the same effect on politics

40% of the country always votes red.

40% of the country always votes blue.

20% of the country can't seem to make up their mind, and are swayed by ads, media bias, and political cartoons.

And, 80% of the country, when polled, will reliably say that they think Congress is doing a bad job, but the same 80% will just as reliably vote their incumbents back into office.

So, in short, we're boned.

I went to a tea party once, and this guy showed up:

There was also a rabbit there, who was, lets just say.... a bit eccentric.

Tea-bag!

Joey

Put me in the nine then. The Tea "Party" is a lot of complaining with no real ideas for change.

As for the politicians with their names followed by an (i), if there isn't a Libertarian running for the office then the (i) is getting tossed. Both parties are useless for getting anything done. I don't think the word "partisanship" really encompasses the deep protectionist bull that is going on with both sides.

joey48442 wrote: Tea-bag! Joey

Ummm, Joey, I don't think this topic is related to your sexual preferences.

In reply to slefain:

The Libertarian Party cannot offer a viable candidate until it purges itself of the head cases who distract attention from the party's good points. Then again, if that were to happen, it wouldn't really be the Libertarian Party anymore, would it?

It would take a bunch of steadfast Independents to get elected and not succumb to influences from the two other parties. But it would be great to see it happen.

Seems like the best we can achieve is for voters to stay involved, keep in contact with their representatives and vote the beatches OUT if they don't perform.

it means that nothing will change and you and I are still paying the bills for those that don't work.

....and now that over 50% don't pay income taxes, guess who wins. All I'm hoping for is that the lazy, incompetent, parasites and looters are too berkeleying stupid and lazy to go vote in November...and I'm pretty confident that'll be the case.

That being said, I'll once again be "throwing away my vote." No incumbents, and if there's a non-psycho libertarian on the ticket, or a libertarian in an elephant suit, that's who I'll be voting for.

Regarding the Tea Party/Libertarian thing, I think both are a freakin' shame. Sarah Palin is now the "unofficial" face, and (shudder) voice of the Tea Party thing. The Libertarians still don't have a face or a voice AFAIK, though I'd vote for Chip Rogers (swoon,) Boortz, Herman Cain, or John Stossel in a heartbeat. Stossel "gets it."

Speaking of, Boortz will be on Stossel's Fox Business show tomorrow night at 8:00PM, discussing the blatant unsustainability of our current tax system. Should be good watchin'.

I think that when someone from some little resort island country in the Caribbean starts up a strictly USA related political thread, I'm calling that a TROLL. Maybe we should just go down and Fix Up Beyond All Recognition his little island paradise.

poopshovel wrote: Speaking of, Boortz will be on Stossel's Fox Business show tomorrow night at 8:00PM, discussing the blatant unsustainability of our current tax system. Should be good watchin'.

The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth will take time to explain the Fair Tax. Stossel could be another great voice to promote the "change we need" if he understands and embaces the concept - and I think he "gets it" already.

As for Herman Cain, he gave a good red-meat speech recently:

http://www.viddler.com/explore/rightscoop/videos/22/

oldtin wrote: I went to a tea party.... thrown by my 7 year old niece though. I expect my niece's party to have about the same effect on politics

What a nice Uncle you are. My brother had tea with his three year old daughter while Mom was shopping. She came home and he's having a very small cup of water.

"What are yo doing?"

Having tea with Emily.

"Where's the only place in the house she can reach water?"

Doh!

Have to agree with Hess, and I'm not an American. I think we should have at least 100 more congressmen/women, pay them less, limit the actual time in D.C. Sure there would be a few whack-jobs elected, but I'm not sure that would be the worst thing ever, heck there might even be a few elected who actually gave a crap about the people, the constitution,etc. Also anything to break the death grip of the two parties - can't wait for an actual independent POTUS some day, either that or less polarized parties.

914Driver wrote: "What are yo doing?" Having tea with Emily. "Where's the only place in the house she can reach water?" Doh!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHHAA

I am still trying to figure out when the RNP and DNP became more important the the governing of the country. They are all so concerned with getting reelected that they don't think anything through.

If the sheeple would just grow some balls and vote their incumbents out of office and start over fresh. The problem is that most sheeple think that their Rep or Sen is doing a great job it is the other E36 M3 heads that are screwing up the country.

Remember when you had conservitive Dems and Liberal Reps and they still managed to get things done? Been a long time huh.

The idea that the third or 4th party candidates end up giving the election to the "other" party is a weak argument, IMHO.

The point of the election is to vote for the person who best represents YOU. And the sum of the highest "you" gets sent to the office, right?

And I read "congress sucks" normally means that everyone but my represenatation sucks. Look how many people were happy when Kennedy passed last year- but Mass elected him for decades. I'm sure that many Mass residents think that he was ok, and it was the "other" guys in the "other" districts that are the problem with congress.

That being said, we should not fear the red or blue party for whatver they do- most stuff can always be undone. And it really burns me when someone voted for Bush to be anti Gore or Obama to be anit Bush/McCain- when the fact was that NONE of them represented you.

The only way your REAL voice will be heard is if you VOTE for real. If the tea party is your game, friken vote that way. You may think that you could give the (D) another shot at screwing this up, but it's just as important to shake the R side up that they are just as not you.

Look at how Nader reacted to Democrats who very much blame him about what happened in 2000. He didn't care at all- nither Bush or Gore represented what he was about- to him, they were the same. That's what matters. Vote who represents you- it's NOT a throwaway vote.

Enough of that rant...

Eric

In reply to alfadriver:

I agree entirely. Many Americans are NOT well represented by either major party at this point, but still seem to believe they have to vote for one or the other. I think that's why many don't bother to vote.

+1 to all, alFa.

Remember when you had conservitive Dems and Liberal Reps and they still managed to get things done? Been a long time huh.

Problem is, I don't want the Republicans to go along with any of the E36 M3 the Democrats are pushing through. The healthcare bill in any form other than "Here's our plan to deal with the unsustainability of this Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security monster that GOVERNMENT created," should've never passed.

Sadly, also, the Republicans didn't do 99% of the E36 M3 they promised when they had control of congress. I'll give Thee Obama this: Hiring this mother berkeleyer (who makes Karl Rove look like a freakin' Bob Costascat) was a smart move:

Bob Costascat

awesome.

I agree and disagree. When I lived in Ca, I got into a debate with a more liberal minded fellow on a plane ride and he was happy to point out that "at least your vote doesn't count" meaning that since I live in Ca, a conservative vote was wasted. My counter was that unless the election is down to 1 single vote, it could be argued that no single vote "counted." At the same time, even Boortz who several see as a great Libertarian spokesman, said he would NOT vote for a third party in a major national election this Fall. I guess that got him dis-invited to speak at some Libertarian convention.

oldsaw wrote:

joey48442 wrote: Tea-bag! Joey

Ummm, Joey, I don't think this topic is related to your sexual preferences.

So your not coming over later?

Well then.

Joey

Yeah Emmanuel (spelling?) sounds a bit crazy/scary. Did you hear the ousted Dem complaining of him confronting congressmen in the congressional shower trying to sway their vote. I can only imagine two naked politicans in the shower arguing politics!

So where does Salad fit in.. . I am thinking a nice spot of Twinings Earl Gray would set things rite.. Wait what were we talking about?

Just having another group around that is making both the red and blue stand up and take notice is not a bad thing.

poopshovel wrote: Problem is, I don't want the Republicans to go along with any of the E36 M3 the Democrats are pushing through.

People who think like this (whether voters or elected officials) are the problem.

Now you can pick on individual things you don't want. And on those I'll agree or disagree with you.

But if you really think that everything either party is does is wrong (or right for that matter) then you are part of the problem.

It turns everything into us vs them instead of looking at the actual issues.

On a related note, it's a shame that that sort of media (from either side) makes money too, because it means that the stuff people hear is intentionally crafted to be divisive regardless of the actual issue. Not healthy, but people (on both sides) lap it up.

If I were to make a list (limited to the to big parties) of the people I'd want running the country, Republicans would heavily dominate that list. (call it 80-85% or the list). But not a single one of them would be one of the ones currently running the party. That's not to say that the Dems on the list are the ones running their party either.

The divisive attitude of "Everything they do is wrong" is exactly the attitude that keeps the nutjobs in charge of both parties and the reasonable people on both sides mostly afraid to do anything other than meekly toe the line. And since the system is setup so that you are voting for anyone other than the big two is worse than throwing your vote away, keeps said nutjobs in charge of the country, regardless of who wins.