Liberal&Tea Party alliance - last hope for civil liberties?

[Samuel]

The Huffington poll implies that the Tea Partiers are anti civil liberties - much more so than the regular Republican.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Major ... riage.aspx

Tea Party- 20% in favor. Republicans- 20% in favor. So yeah, they have the exact same amount of respect for civil liberties.

Huffington is trying to claim Tea Party members are anti-civil liberties. Their poll fails. The NYT poll shows that the Tea Party members are concerned primarily with government power and spending, plus economic concerns. That still fails to tie it to an anti civil liberties agenda.

Yeah, a party can't have multiple agendas at the same time

The Tea Party is a disaffected segment of the Republican Party, primarily over the issue of government power and spending. That is it. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

So polls and stated opinions of tea party politicians mean nothing?

Because they did in fact vote against the Patriot Act. Now, you can claim that it's because they're being NIMBY about it, but again, these last two paragraphs are entirely conjecture anyway. Until you drill it down to individual Tea Party folks you're probably not gonna get an answer.

Yes, it is pure conjecture that the far right in America is afraid the government will crack down on them. It is unconnected with any of the rhetoric they have been making and there is no reason to come to that conclusion at all.

Parties, as you've admitted, are not black and white. And the Tea Party is no different.

Yeah- the majority of them voted for the extension.

However, it's worth noting that they're not actually calling for the removal of civil liberties.

Yeah, they only don't want to extend them to homosexuals. Or hispanics. Or immigrants.

[Zinegata]

Tea Party- 20% in favor. Republicans- 20% in favor. So yeah, they have the exact same amount of respect for civil liberties.

Wrong statement again, actually. Again, Huffington's poll are not necessarily TP members.

Secondly, "They have the exact same amount of respect for civil liberties" is actually a wrong statement even if the above data holds true. Because you should actually count the level of support on the other end of the spectrum for civil liberties. Because while they may have the same number of people who disapprove of gay marriage, they may actually have a higher number of people who do approve of it than the standard Republican base, and that the people who fall in the neutral camp is smaller.

Again, making wild conjectures about the data is useless and is just mud-slinging. The NYT article, having read it fully now, seems to present the most accurate picture - not surprising as they had an actual detailed methodology and list of questions.

And yeah, NYT pretty much says "They're disatisfied Republicans over big government."

So polls and stated opinions of tea party politicians mean nothing?

Polls mean a lot. But you're not talking about actual poll data like the NYT is. You're talking about your own conjecture that is several steps removed from the polling data.

Also, yes, the stated opinions of politicians mean very little. Because you do in fact live in a democracy, and as Lincolon said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Yeah- the majority of them voted for the extension.

And? Does this mean you should condemn all of them to Hell? Fuck people who go against the party line?

Because really, all you're demonstrating is the extreme black-and-white ideological stupidity that seems to characterize most American politics, which is almost totally not reflected by most individual American citizens. Heck, even the NYT concludes that most Tea Partyers are actually inline with the views of most "normal" Americans - including a distate for Palin!

Yeah, they only don't want to extend them to homosexuals. Or hispanics. Or immigrants.

And bluntly, as a non-American whose country has many immigrants to the US, I don't believe that Democrats truly believe in extending rights to immigrants anyway. Unless they're Hispanics or Mexicans who can be relied upon to vote blue. That's why you somehow mention homosexuals and hispanics, but leave out Asians, Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos who are a more diffused voting block - almost equally likely to vote blue or red.

Franchise and representation is only extended when it helps their own party, not because of actual principle. It's been true since the constitution was drafted. A deeply cynical truth, but the truth nonetheless.

[bobalot]

Yeah, they only don't want to extend them to homosexuals. Or hispanics. Or immigrants.

And bluntly, as a non-American whose country has many immigrants to the US, I don't believe that Democrats truly believe in extending rights to immigrants anyway. Unless they're Hispanics or Mexicans who can be relied upon to vote blue. That's why you somehow mention homosexuals and hispanics, but leave out Asians, Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos who are a more diffused voting block - almost equally likely to vote blue or red.

Franchise and representation is only extended when it helps their own party, not because of actual principle. It's been true since the constitution was drafted. A deeply cynical truth, but the truth nonetheless.

Can you provide some evidence for this claim? I'm tired of reading post after post of yours where you substitute your opinion for fucking facts.

[Zinegata]

Can you provide some evidence for this claim? I'm tired of reading post after post of yours where you substitute your opinion for fucking facts.

Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_american

From the 1940s to the 1990s most Asian Americans were anti-communist refugees who had fled mainland China, North Korea or Vietnam, and were strongly anti-Communist. Many had ties to conservative organizations.[99][100] In recent years more liberal Asian-American groups such as newer Chinese and Indian immigrants have greatly changed the Asian American political demographics, as well as a larger proportion of younger Asian Americans, many of whom have completed college degrees.[101] Filipino Americans are becoming more socially liberal, partly due to the group's increasingly younger age average.[102][not in citation given]

In the 1992 presidential election Republican George H. W. Bush received 55% of the Asian-American vote compared to 31% for Democrat Bill Clinton. Asian Americans voted Republican and were the only racial group more conservative than whites in the 1990s, according to surveys.[99] The Asian American vote has slowly shifted since then with Democrat John Kerry winning 56% of the Asian American vote in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election and Democrat Barack Obama winning 62% of the Asian American vote in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election.[103]

Asian-Americans are a diffuse voting block who only recently started going for the Dems. And that may just be George W. Bush effect.

By comparison...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic-American

2008 electionIn the 2008 Presidential election's Democratic primary Hispanics and Latinos participated in larger numbers than before, with Hillary Clinton receiving most of the group's support.[97] Pundits discussed whether a large percentage of Hispanics and Latinos would vote for an African American candidate, in this case Barack Obama, Clinton's opponent.[98] Hispanics/Latinos voted 2 to 1 for Mrs. Clinton, even among the younger demographic, which in the case of other groups was an Obama stronghold.[99] Among Hispanics, 28% said race was involved in their decision, as opposed to 13% for (non-Hispanic) whites.[99]

Obama defeated Clinton. In the matchup between Obama and Republican candidate John McCain for the presidency, Hispanics and Latinos supported Obama with 59% to McCain's 29% in the Gallup tracking poll as of June 30, 2008.[96] This surprised some analysts, since a higher than expected percentage of Latinos and Hispanics favored Obama over McCain, who had been a leader of the comprehensive immigration reform effort.[100] However, McCain had retracted during the Republican primary, stating that he would not support the bill if it came up again. Some analysts believed that this move hurt his chances among Hispanics and Latinos.[101] Obama took advantage of the situation by running ads aimed at the ethnic group, in Spanish, in which he mentioned McCain's about-face.[102]

In the general election, 67% of Hispanics and Latinos voted for Obama[103] and 31% voted for McCain,[104] with a relatively stronger turnout than in previous elections in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia helping Obama carry those formerly Republican states. Obama won 70% of non-Cuban Hispanics and 35% of the traditionally Republican Cuban Americans that have a strong presence in Florida, while the changing state demographics towards a more non-Cuban Hispanic community also contributed to his carrying Florida's Latinos with 57% of the vote.[103][105] Hispanics and Latinos also supplanted Republican gains in traditional red states, for example Obama carried 63% of Texas Latinos, despite that the overall state voted for McCain by 55%

The question with Hispanic-Americans (except for the Cuban-Americans, who generally vote Red) is this: Will they vote blue, or will they vote hugely in favor of blue.

And really, this is why you often see American "liberals" whining about immigration and hispanics in the same breath, but never mention immigrants from other countries.

(And again, let me qualify: While there are bastards who exploit civil liberties to get more votes, there are also good folks who really believe in civil liberties. I am talking about the former, not the latter. And I am telling the whiners who can't tell the difference to fucking shut up pre-emptively)

So again, really, stop getting all butthurt over the cynical view that a major reason why some Dems "champion" immigration (but seemingly only Hispanic immigration) is because it gets them votes. Hispanics are a sure thing. Asians are not, so they don't get very much attention on the immigration front.

Also, this kind of shit has been going on since the US was founded. Remember how blacks counted as 3/5s of a person when the US declared independence? That's because corrupt southern politicians with huge slave populations were unfairily using their slave population count to get more guys in Congress. So you'd get South Carolina congressmen who are supposed to represent say, 10,000 people, but of whom only 2,000 are non-slaves with an actual right to vote.

So fuck you and your butthurt whininess. Every issue involving extending the franchise - including civil liberties - has a cynical side to it. Which includes getting more political power at the expense of others.

[bobalot]

Are you retarded?

Prove this claim.

I don't believe that Democrats truly believe in extending rights to immigrants

So again, really, stop getting all butthurt over the cynical view that a major reason why some Dems "champion" immigration (but seemingly only Hispanic immigration) is because it gets them votes. Hispanics are a sure thing. Asians are not, so they don't get very much attention on the immigration front.

Don't words into my mouth or make up some bullshit motives.

The only thing I'm pissed off about is your shitty posts. None of your voluminous bullshit proves the first quote I got up there.

[ZOmegaZ]

The Tea Party sided with the Dems on the Patriot Act repeals. There's again lots of evidence to show that Tea Partiers do, in fact, support civil liberties.

As more evidence that the Tea Party is not monolithic, I'd like to point out that of the Tea Party Caucus, 44 of the 52 members voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 027912.php

[Samuel]

Wrong statement again, actually. Again, Huffington's poll are not necessarily TP members...But you're not talking about actual poll data like the NYT is.

I was refering to the New York Times gallop poll. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... html#tab=6

Notice the "gay couples should be allowed to legally marry" is at 16%?

And? Does this mean you should condemn all of them to Hell? Fuck people who go against the party line?

How is this at all related to anything I said?

Heck, even the NYT concludes that most Tea Partyers are actually inline with the views of most "normal" Americans - including a distate for Palin!

Except for government services (42% difference from normal), view of Bush and Beck (30% and 41%), immigration, gay marriage and abortion (22, 23, 16).

I'm not sure what definition you are using for normal, but 60% of them have a favorable view of Glen Beck, and who is stark raving mad.

I don't believe that Democrats truly believe in extending rights to immigrants anyway. Unless they're Hispanics or Mexicans who can be relied upon to vote blue. That's why you somehow mention homosexuals and hispanics, but leave out Asians, Japanese, Koreans, and Filipinos who are a more diffused voting block - almost equally likely to vote blue or red.

Your an idiot. Asian immigrants have the same amount of civil liberties as all other citizens. When people talk about rights in reference to immigration they are generally refering to
-people trying to make English the national language
-people trying to erect barriers to keep hispanics out
-people requiring citizens (re hispanics) have identification to prove citizenship at all times
-people who think that mexican culture is a threat to the US, etc

Most of these aren't a problem for Asian immigrants. Asia does not share a land border with the US and so the US does not have a large number of them entering the country.

Franchise and representation is only extended when it helps their own party, not because of actual principle.

19th Amendment refutes that claim.

And really, this is why you often see American "liberals" whining about immigration and hispanics in the same breath, but never mention immigrants from other countries.

Because 78% of illegal immigrants (the people who this mainly concerns) are from Latin America?