Tea Party The New Civil Rights Movement?

[TRoaches]

I'll say it again......

 

THEY STILL DO THIS TODAY. THEY CONSISTENTLY DRAW THEIR DISTRICTS ACCORDING TO THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE AREAS IN QUESTION. IT IS NOT A RELIC FROM THE 60's. IT IS A CURRENTLY UTILIZED TACTIC.

 

http://hhallgrimur.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gerrymandering41.jpg

Edited June 25, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

@Troaches

 

I was never disputing they don't redistrict. I was disputing what they are actually doing in result of redistricting. Making the states in total control of one party to push legislation destroying abortion rights, railing against gay and lesbian rights, fracturing equality in the work place for women, and halting immigration.

 

This is happening today! This is not the 60's.... The democratic party doesn't pull this type of crap in states totally controlled by their party to move extreme social agendas! If they did I probably wouldn't be voting democratic very much longer.

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

That is the current map of the 4th District of Illinois. I don't know why you are still talking about the 60's. That district map was used in 2012. It does not get any more current than that. Also, I am confused as to why you would need to stop voting Democrat, given that you asserted your lifelong allegiance to the Republicans earlier in this thread.

 

Just to let you know I've honestly been a registered republican my whole life.

 

Honestly!

[colourwheel]

I am not going to argue with you anymore Troaches. And just for your information, you can vote for anyone you want regaurdless of being registered to one political party.

 

Let me ask you this though, if you were me in a state totally controlled by a tea party cacus controlled governor's mansion to a super majority controlled state legislation all because of gerrymandering the districts to pass laws against abortion rights, gay and lesbians, equality in the work place for women, and immigration. Would you really feel that welcome in the Tea Party being a female immigrant who is bisexual and to top things off being a single women too?

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel

[sukeban]

 

Seriously now? What Gerrymandering has lead the Democratic party to force extreme social legislation to pass that has hurt a community state wise or even nationally?

I thought the example that I provided of Democrat gerrymandering specifically to disenfranchise non-white voters in response to thevoting rights act was a pretty solid example. In fact, I would argue that it was a far more offensive and unforgivable tactic than anything the Republicans have ever done. To this day they consistently gerrymander along ethnic lines, which I consider a racist and divisive tactic.

 

 

The reason that ethnicity is considered when drawing Congressional districts is because without them the minority runs the risk of being disenfranchised and their concerns totally ignored, as you stated. In the "post-racial" future it may indeed be unnecessary, but given the reality of the situation today--that race and its attendant demographic constellations still plays a large role in shaping voter behavior--it should surprise absolutely nobody. Of course, this can and has been exploited by both sides and is negative in that it generally insulates incumbents from challengers, but the basic premise--that minorities should get a say in government--is still pretty sound.

 

Also, the Republican gerrymandering in the House today is empirically way more outrageous than anything seen in nearly two generations:

 

"However, this is quite notable. The popular vote was a swing of more than 6% from the 2010 election, which was 53.5% R, 46.5% D. Yet the composition of the House hardly changed – and the party that got more votes is not in control. This discrepancy between popular votes and seat counts is the largest since 1950. Did I underestimate the tilt of the playing field? Based on how far the red data point is from the black prediction line, the “structural unfairness” may be higher – as much as 5% of the popular vote. That is incredible. Clearly nonpartisan redistricting reform would be in our democracy’s best interests."

http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/house_nomograph_with-2012-result.jpg

In any case, what I think we can all agree on is that allowing political parties to draw their own electoral districts--to literally choose their own voters--is a terrible idea that damages our democracy--doesn't matter which party is doing it.

[TRoaches]

Why register with a party if you do not support any of its members?

 

If I were you (or anyone else) I would concern myself with identifying the actual cause of those problems rather than placing the blame on an a political movement that does not have social politics on its agenda. The tea party does not control your state's government. It is simply not possible, through gerrymandering or otherwise, for such a situation to exist. Gerrymandering alone cannot produce a super majority in the legislature, so again I would wonder what circumstances actually led to that situation. I would not concern myself with feeling "welcomed" in any particular party, but would support candidates who express ideals that correlate with my own beliefs, needs and desires. I would reject the opinions of both Republicans and Democrats with regards to each other because such opinions are bound to be loaded with politically expedient lies. I wouldn't even need to be you to do any of these things. I do all of them.

 

 

In any case, what I think we can all agree on is that allowing political parties to draw their own electoral districts--to literally choose their own voters--is a terrible idea that damages our democracy--doesn't matter which party is doing it.

 

This is a much more valid point, and one that I agree with completely. The problem is not Republican gerrymandering (although they have been doing a better job of it lately) but the fact that it is even possible to do in the first place.

 

Regarding your point about ethnic disenfranchisement : At this point there is little to no chance that a person would be denied the right to vote, or run for office, based on their race. Drawing districts along racial lines actually encourages underrepresentation among minority voters by encouraging people to vote based on antiquated racial allegiances rather than their political or moral beliefs.

Edited June 25, 2013 by TRoaches

[Kendo 2]

*laughs* Glenn Beck...REALLY? :rolleyes:

ANYWAY...Let's review...

 

Obama says 'total transparency'. Okay, that's a LIE. DERP. Obama is a LIAR. Shoot me/ban me/etc. Yeah....I SAID IT...He's a liar. We all know it.

 

The Benghazi cover up, the IRS targeting conservative organizations, the Justice Department targeting reporters (both liberal and conservative), the NSA has the means to eye-ball or ear-hustle every key stroke or phone call we make without a warrant and...and.. oh f*ckit. What's the use, right? Conservative members can't post freely here (lest the dreaded yellow text rear its ugly biased head).

 

'Oh the poor gay/lesbian/alterno lifestyle. We're being targeted.' REALLY? What about government sanctioned religious oppression (ala ObamaCare) and religious institutions being FORCED to provide birth control even though it violates their base religous beliefs AND THE FREAK'N CONSTITUTION?

 

Let's surmise...

The IRS, The Justice Department, ObamaCare, Benghazi...

That's not targeting? That's not censoring? That's not oppression? Well, I guess all of that is okay, since it's not fascism when democrats are doing it.

 

Was there ever a need for a new civil rights movement to stop what the social progressives have done after Ronald Regan (the last true President that actually upheld and defended the Constitution)?

YES

Are pimped-out groups like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street the answer?

NO

There is a dire necessity for reason/truth...and we don't have it.

[Lord Garon]

I'll say it again......

 

<snip>

 

Interesting district lines, it HAD to be Chicago. :)

 

Disregarding gerrymandering, it is almost impossible to get a "real" Tea Party candidate on a viable ticket in a two party system. I had an interesting experience in a governor's race. Several local Tea Parties were endorsing a "true believer" (seemingly so, but you never know how they'll perform). The polls starting turning and the "lesser of two evils" syndrome reared its ugly head. All that work to get people in the caucus and district voters registered and motivated rapidly went for naught as it was "decided" to endorse the Republican front runner instead. It was a close race between the Democrats and Republicans and our esteemed leadership didn't want to "waste votes" on a "sure loser" and let the "more evil" Democrat get in office. In short, we bailed on our guy. And ourselves. The winner, the Democrat, celebrated his "victory" over the Tea Parties.The Republicans were his only real challenge, but its good press and politics for a Dem to beat up on the Tea Parties. There's a theory that a simple majority-wins voting system engenders an entrenched two party political system. From my experiences, I will personally vouch for that theory. Too many second choice candidates are in office right now through the same disease that afflicted us; lack of conviction. I vote my conscious come hell or high water; most voters at least pause at high water and stop at hell. Voters can't do that. Politicians can't do that.The problems which affect the country right now are the result of this incessant compromise. Ole Margaret Thatcher (RIP) said, paraphrased, that compromise is the absence of leadership. Nothing could be more true in government, or within the voting society it represents. WE have not exercised much Vigilance and we're now getting what we paid for.

 

Its somewhat easier at the local level; we've gotten wins in both red and blue districts, demonstrating the cross-party appeal of Tea Party candidates. But, they are few and far between in the two party dominated system. In the real world, the problem is just getting people to vote. For anyone. But it will have to get even worse before it gets any better. Bush and Obama are the best Tea Party advocates (actually, they created the Tea Parties); they have demonstrated how bad the government actually is right now. I hope we don't have to find out just how bad it can be before enough citizens: 1) Wake up 2) Actually vote in a purposeful and meaningful way (not just because their friends voted for so-and-so or Fox News has an opinion on it).

 

The Tea Parties will be used and abused by politicians until their excuses run out and the untenable nature of business as usual becomes apparent to even an apathetic citizenry. Only then will we see actual Tea Party candidates win office outright and hear actual Tea Party values expressed in Washington. Until then, perceptions such as colourwheel's will continue in those who don't realize they are tools of an establishment bent on maintaining a two-party status quo which only provides an illusion of choice.

[TRoaches]

@Lord Garon: Your refusal to compromise or vote for the "lesser evil" is something that I personally identify with as well. Several conservative friends of mine were angry at my refusal to support Romney in the last election, and even cast blame at me for Obama's election due to their assessment that refusing to vote for one candidate is equivalent to voting for his opponent. I simply refuse to budge on this, and will never vote for someone whom I consider corrupt just because it is considered a vote against someone else who is also corrupt. I insist on voting for people, not against them. What a wacky fringe idea!

[colourwheel]

this is my final poston this thread....

 

This is just my observation from this thread alone, whether you believe it or not....

 

Ironic the 12012 elections are up but the it's hard for the democrates to gain enough support even on a gaming forum to rally up in support for the midterms. But when it comes to national elections liberals come out in a storm to overwhelm the conservative movement where demographics are now against them.....

 

In the long run however, I have concluded unless the conservative tea party movement becomes more popular to more than just a majority of white males over the age of 45, the democratic party will eventually control all branches of government from state legislation to the white house....

 

Demographics do not lie....

 

As of now the demographics in general are against the tea party and even more so the republican party as a whole in the long run....

 

Beleive me I do not want this to happen... I believe in a two party system... but unless the conservative movement lean back to the left more it's is going to die in my opinion.... Then the republicans can whine all they want about having a dictator because they forced it upon themselves from alienating anyone who does not identify with their party.

Edited June 25, 2013 by colourwheel