• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

War Between Gays and the Tea Party

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Tsukasa Buddha
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
As announced by GOP Montana House nominee Kristi Allen-Gailusha.

It all started when president Tim Ravndal made these postings on Facebook, apparently condoning violence against gays (He asked for instructions to "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.").

Now, he claims not to know what he was saying, but he was still kicked out.

Then Kristi went on her Facebook to declare war. It is bad.

At first I was annoyed by everyone one and my grandma going on FB and Twitter, but now I see the benefits :p .

I am grabbing my pink pistol and heading out to indoctrinate children into proper fashion sense. Gay Satan be with you!
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Like I've said all along - eventually the Teabaggers will collapse under their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
Dunno. They're kind of like (and overlap with) the religious right that mostly vote Republican. They won't really be able to make a party in their own right, and they'll eventually disavow (and maybe shun) the outrageous extremists, but their sentiment will still be behind the GOP.

Abortion is no longer a big issue in elections, but anti-abortionists are still one-issue voters and will still vote Republican. I can see the same kind of thing happening to the Tea Party.
 
This must be some kind of mistake. The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Hatred and bigotry are simply not part of their creed.

Yes, clearly a mistake has been made.
 
Tricky said:
Dunno. They're kind of like (and overlap with) the religious right that mostly vote Republican. They won't really be able to make a party in their own right, and they'll eventually disavow (and maybe shun) the outrageous extremists, but their sentiment will still be behind the GOP.

Abortion is no longer a big issue in elections, but anti-abortionists are still one-issue voters and will still vote Republican. I can see the same kind of thing happening to the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

I think Tricky may have stumbled onto something here. Why have one party that tries to be all things to all people (no taxes, no abortions and no MuslimsMexicans) when instead you have several, smaller, spinoff, single-issue parties?

Now, each one isn't large enough to actually field a candidate, so they all end up telling their lemmings to vote for your party, because your party is the one that agrees with the one really important issue they care about. The other parts of your platform aren't important. Most of the efforts the opponents put in will be toward those 'unimportant points', simply because there are more of them, and as such won't be very effective in swaying any single voter's opinion.

But: the teabaggers no longer have to put up with being associated with the Nazis or the Religious wack-Right. "They're not in my party. It doesn't matter that they're supporting the same candidate I am". If anyone gets too extreme for the existing parties: form a new one for just them.

Then apply liberal application of "No True Scotsman", and you've insulated the main party from the extremists wacky ideas. The problems caused by the individual cell groups won't track back to the top brass: "It's just some extremists". But, you're able to count on their votes, because they're all single-issues that the other major party disagrees with, so they'll never vote against you.

Could this be the new party paradigm?
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
It all started when president Tim Ravndal made these postings on Facebook, apparently condoning violence against gays (He asked for instructions to "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.").
Click to expand...

Why Wyoming? I must be missing something...
 
GodMark2 said:
I think Tricky may have stumbled onto something here. Why have one party that tries to be all things to all people (no taxes, no abortions and no MuslimsMexicans) when instead you have several, smaller, spinoff, single-issue parties?

Now, each one isn't large enough to actually field a candidate, so they all end up telling their lemmings to vote for your party, because your party is the one that agrees with the one really important issue they care about. The other parts of your platform aren't important. Most of the efforts the opponents put in will be toward those 'unimportant points', simply because there are more of them, and as such won't be very effective in swaying any single voter's opinion.

But: the teabaggers no longer have to put up with being associated with the Nazis or the Religious wack-Right. "They're not in my party. It doesn't matter that they're supporting the same candidate I am". If anyone gets too extreme for the existing parties: form a new one for just them.

Then apply liberal application of "No True Scotsman", and you've insulated the main party from the extremists wacky ideas. The problems caused by the individual cell groups won't track back to the top brass: "It's just some extremists". But, you're able to count on their votes, because they're all single-issues that the other major party disagrees with, so they'll never vote against you.

Could this be the new party paradigm?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything new about it.

"We're not defending anyone who'd do something like that ...

... but ..."

Old as the hills.
 
Someone suggests murdering gays and she concludes that "gays want war;" but not a war of guns, a war of "truth and hypocrisy."

Wait... what?
 
So, something called "the Tea Party" is for straight people? Modern politics I find baffling.
 
Kristi Allen-Gailusha, a GOP nominee for a Montana House seat and secretary of the Big Sky Tea Party Association, has left the latter group, angry that its president, Tim Ravndal, was forced out following revelations that he posted remarks condoning violence against gay people to his Facebook page.
Click to expand...

Not between gays and the tea party. The tea party kicked Ravndal out and this Kristi woman quit the tea party over it.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think there's anything new about it.

"We're not defending anyone who'd do something like that ...

... but ..."

Old as the hills.
Click to expand...
Zackly.

"We're not courting their vote. Of course if they happen to find that our party is more in line with their particular brand of bigotry and xenophobia, well, we won't refuse their votes. We won't take any money from hate groups, but hey, if they want to donate as individuals, what can we do?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom