Will Bernie create a Democrat version of "TEA Party"

[fredtoast]

Democrats have been laughing at the way the Republicans split into factions and fought with each other instead of getting anything done while they held a majority in both houses of congress.

But I am starting to wonder if people who follow Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will split off from the "mainstream" Democratic party. Maybe they could call it the "Tax Everyone Alot Party"

I like the idea of having more political parties unfortunately neither the Republican TEA Party or a splinter group from the Democrats will be able to become a viable third party without serious campaign finance reform.

[Bengalzona]

Democrats shouldn't laugh too much. The Tea Party split, as painful as it has been for the GOP, helped them corner the House and the Senate within four years time. I don't see a Democratic split group could be that effective. They just don't have the wide-spread machine set up at the local and state levels like the GOP. You need this to win in the "fly-over" states. The Republicans have invested heavily at those levels nationwide for the past 40 years, while Democrats have squandered a lot of the post-Nixon political capital they had.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 11:37 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Democrats shouldn't laugh too much. The Tea Party split, as painful as it has been for the GOP, helped them corner the House and the Senate within four years time. I don't see a Democratic split group could be that effective. 

The Tea Party has not been "effective" in any way.  The Republicans have not accomplished anything because they are fighting with each other.

[Benton]

(03-16-2016, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Tea Party has not been "effective" in any way.  The Republicans have not accomplished anything because they are fighting with each other.

Sure it has. No, they don't do anything, but that's fine with the bulk of the GOP. That's been their party agenda for a decade — they cut taxes, they got lax regulation on business laws, they've unfunded departments to the point they're deregulated. They got everything they were looking for, they just needed to have a slight majority to make sure Democrats couldn't undo any of it.

[Bengalzona]

(03-16-2016, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Tea Party has not been "effective" in any way.  The Republicans have not accomplished anything because they are fighting with each other.

(03-16-2016, 03:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Sure it has. No, they don't do anything, but that's fine with the bulk of the GOP. That's been their party agenda for a decade — they cut taxes, they got lax regulation on business laws, they've unfunded departments to the point they're deregulated. They got everything they were looking for, they just needed to have a slight majority to make sure Democrats couldn't undo any of it.

As Benton said.

They have been effective at one thing (outside of being effective jerks): they have been effective at getting elected.

In politics, that is a rather important thing to be effective at.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-16-2016, 03:25 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: As Benton said.

They have been effective at one thing (outside of being effective jerks): they have been effective at getting elected.

In politics, that is a rather important thing to be effective at.

Agreed. The tea party has been the best thing for the GOP. They lost some senate seats but the reality is the establishment GOP worked with the Dems to lose tea party seats. That's what happened to Allen west in my district. Pelosi an reid heavily funded patrick Murphy and Boehner gave zero money to the west campaign. And Murphy won by hijinx at the st Lucie county election board during the counts. It was razor close.

[*michaelsean*]

If there's one word that is synonymous with Democrats, it's "hijinx".

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:25 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: As Benton said.

They have been effective at one thing (outside of being effective jerks): they have been effective at getting elected.

In politics, that is a rather important thing to be effective at.

Getting elected means zero if you can't get anything done.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-16-2016, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If there's one word that is synonymous with Democrats, it's "hijinx".

It was big deal down here. And shame we lost such a good conservative. Murphy is pretty much worthless.

[xxlt]

(03-16-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Getting elected means zero if you can't get anything done.

The above statement is true only if you care about improving things for the citizenry. By and large Republicans do not. They like to say, "Government can't do anything," and when they get elected they try to prove it. This makes them the ultimate hypocrites. They decry those who receive any form of assistance as moochers and free loaders who are "lazy" and "get a check for doing nothing." As elected officials, they get much bigger checks for doing nothing, and perversely they are quite proud of it. Fred is right in that they've gotten nothing substantive done, but they don't care and even brag about it. The whole work for welfare thing - it should apply to these politicians, but it doesn't. They literally get paid a handsome salary to do nothing.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2016, 03:47 PM)xxlt Wrote: The above statement is true only if you care about improving things for the citizenry. By and large Republicans do not. They like to say, "Government can't do anything," and when they get elected they try to prove it. This makes them the ultimate hypocrites. They decry those who receive any form of assistance as moochers and free loaders who are "lazy" and "get a check for doing nothing." As elected officials, they get much bigger checks for doing nothing, and perversely they are quite proud of it. Fred is right in that they've gotten nothing substantive done, but they don't care and even brag about it. The whole work for welfare thing - it should apply to these politicians, but it doesn't. They literally get paid a handsome salary to do nothing fund raise for their next campaign and line their pockets with lobbyist money.

FTFY

[StLucieBengal]

(03-16-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Getting elected means zero if you can't get anything done.

Wrong. Sometimes it's not about getting anything done . It's about standing for principles that got you elected and following through. The whole idea that things need passed is crazy. The whole first 100 days of a president is ridiculous. There is some weird race to pass as many things as possible. I want quality passed, not quantity. Same for congress.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wrong.   Sometimes it's not about getting anything done .  It's about standing for principles that got you elected and following through.    The whole idea that things need passed is crazy.    The whole first 100 days of a president is ridiculous.   There is some weird race to pass as many things as possible.    I want quality passed, not quantity.    Same for congress.

So you see NO current problems in this country that need to be fixed?

No problems with spending and/or taxation?




Wow.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-16-2016, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you see NO current problems in this country that need to be fixed?



Wow.

I see plenty.   But where has Obama met with the house freedom caucas to bridge the gap?    The president has to initiate compromise.    The last time he brought republican leaders to the WH for a meeting he told McCain that he won and elections have consequences.      

How is that a leader?

Until we get some leadership nothing will get done.

[xxlt]

(03-16-2016, 03:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: FTFY

As Isaac Hayes said about John Shaft, "You're Damn Right!"

[Bengalzona]

(03-16-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Getting elected means zero if you can't get anything done.

It should mean zero. But you and I are obviously idealists. Most of the country doesn't agree apparently. 

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 03:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sometimes it's not about getting anything done .    

The whole idea that things need passed is crazy.    

(03-16-2016, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you see NO current problems in this country that need to be fixed?

(03-16-2016, 04:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I see plenty.

Okay, now I am totally confused.

Does Congress need to pass legislation or not in order to address the problems with this country?

If so then how is it good the Congress has not done anything?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-16-2016, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay, now I am totally confused.

Does Congress need to pass legislation or not in order to address the problems with this country?

If so then how is it good the Congress has not done anything?

If you are rating them on quantity passed then ok. But I think it's about quality. And they have passed plenty but Reid has either Buried it in the senate or Obama has said he will reject what they pass. Instead of rejecting it .... Maybe he should meet with them and find some common ground and pass that.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-16-2016, 04:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you see NO current problems in this country that need to be fixed?

No problems with spending and/or taxation?




Wow.

Of course there is problems that need to be addressed, hastily pushing bills thru with out vetting them properly results in loop holes and can create new problems.

[*michaelsean*]

The House passed a ton of stuff that sat on Harry Reid's desk. Or do we only count passing things if it's what Dems like?