Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XVII

Status
Not open for further replies.
This guy must be something else, if he's to the right of Cantor.

I'm still not sure if this is a good thing or not.

This guy is probably going to try to ruin the country like his buddies, but his attempt may discredit the Tea Party further.
Like those in Washington, on both sides, haven't already done that? Pretty sure blame deserves to be given to Democrats as well, but I doubt you'd ever blame them due to your biases.
 
But really, I see the Democratic party as incompetent, overbearing, but at least trying to improve the country.

I don't see that with the Republican party. I see an uncaring, out of touch, reactionary party with no ideas that is increasingly having to rely on demagoguery and cheating just to stay relevant. They have brought the country to the state it is in now largely on their own.

I see the Tea Party as an outright destructive force that appeals to the worst in people.

Just so there's no confusion.
 
But really, I see the Democratic party as incompetent, overbearing, but at least trying to improve the country.

I don't see that with the Republican party. I see an uncaring, out of touch, reactionary party with no ideas that is increasingly having to rely on demagoguery and cheating just to stay relevant. They have brought the country to the state it is in now largely on their own.

I see the Tea Party as an outright destructive force that appeals to the worst in people.

Just so there's no confusion.


have I asked about your thoughts on the libertarian fraction in the GOP or even the Libertarian Party itself?
 
Virginia law prevents Cantor from doing that.

I could be wrong but Virginia law prevents him from putting his name on the ballot, it doesn't prevent a write in campaign.

Totally different situation...and again, he is stepping down from Majority Leader, he wouldn't do that if he was planning on winning a write in campaign.

You can find some similarities. Both are in 55-45 red districts(in the case of Murkowski her "district" happens to be the whole state) and they both lost in the primary to a extreme right candidate. As for the majority leader thing he could drop it so he can lose his "Washington" label.

I guess one difference might be Murkowski is a bit more moderate then Cantor so he can't try appeal to those middle of the road Democrats(hey you don't want Joe Miller)
 
Last edited:
Tea Party Candidate Says It's OK To Stone Gays To Death

Scott Esk, a Republican Tea Party candidate in Oklahoma, got into a debate on Facebook last summer in which he advocated killing homosexuals.

“I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” Esk wrote in comments uncovered by Oklahoma journalist Rob Morris. “That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

When pressed, Esk added: "I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it."

Esk is running for the state's House of Representatives. The primary is scheduled for June 24.

When contacted by Morris, who runs the news outlet Moore Daily, Esk didn't deny making the comments or back down from the rhetoric.

"That was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God and in that time there it was totally just. It came directly from God," Esk said, adding: "I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins."

The Raw Story notes that in other Facebook posts, Esk has said that laws punishing gays should be instituted locally so people "can decide for themselves whether they want to live in a particular community based in part on how things like this are dealt with.”

The comments have quickly gone viral, drawing attention to other parts of his platform... and those views aren't any less extreme.

Esk wants to "punish abortionists severely for their committing of murder" and punish federal bureaucrats who try to enact the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In addition, he's against all forms of gun licenses, wants to cut education funding "which I don’t consider a proper function of government" and believes "the EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc." "have no legitimate reason for existing, since they’re unConstitutional."

Esk wants to make divorce more difficult as well. He's calling for jury trials for divorce cases and an end to no-fault proceedings.

"I also don’t buy into the notion that it’s unfair to make somebody stay in a marriage he’s unhappy with," Esk wrote.

Esk was married for 15 years until "frivolous divorce raised its ugly head in the Esk home," he notes on his campaign website. (You can see him speak more about divorce in the video below.)

Esk's Facebook page contains other stunners, including a December 2013 post written shortly after Nelson Mandela's death in which he called the former South African president a "communist thug" and a "low-life."

And in November 2013, he wrote of calling 911 to report "a large group of Mexicans" gathered at an Oklahoma City mall geared toward Latino shoppers because he "suspected that many of them were guilty of being here illegally."

His long rant notes that police didn't respond to his emergency call.

Esk was a computer programmer in the state's Department of Public Safety, but has "since gravitated toward courier work." He also owns a window-washing business.

"I look forward to applying Biblical principles to Oklahoma law," Esk writes on his website.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/scott-esk-stoning-gays_n_5486678.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

This man is completely insane!
 
This guy must be something else, if he's to the right of Cantor.

I'm still not sure if this is a good thing or not.

This guy is probably going to try to ruin the country like his buddies, but his attempt may discredit the Tea Party further.
I really wouldn't try to to paint him as some destructive Tea Partier. He had some support from the Tea Party but Brat is coming off as far more sophisticated and intelligent than the typical Tea Party candidate. The fact that he's run a really well run campaign against the House Majority Leader is a testament to that. No idiot Tea Partier is going to take down a Majority Leader (as we saw with Matt Bevin being demolished by Mitch McConnell). Even the MSNBC hosts are giving the guy credit for a much needed refreshing change of tone.
 
But really, I see the Democratic party as incompetent, overbearing, but at least trying to improve the country.

I don't see that with the Republican party. I see an uncaring, out of touch, reactionary party with no ideas that is increasingly having to rely on demagoguery and cheating just to stay relevant. They have brought the country to the state it is in now largely on their own.

I see the Tea Party as an outright destructive force that appeals to the worst in people.

Just so there's no confusion.
Me thinks that you should listen to Chris Matthews a little bit more
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_our_noses_at_tea_party_has_got_to_stop.html
 
But really, I see the Democratic party as incompetent, overbearing, but at least trying to improve the country.

I don't see that with the Republican party. I see an uncaring, out of touch, reactionary party with no ideas that is increasingly having to rely on demagoguery and cheating just to stay relevant. They have brought the country to the state it is in now largely on their own.

I see the Tea Party as an outright destructive force that appeals to the worst in people.

Just so there's no confusion.

*sigh*, life as a conservative, constantly being vilified by the left.
 
I could be wrong but Virginia law prevents him from putting his name on the ballot, it doesn't prevent a write in campaign.
I don't think Cantor is allowed a write-in campaign. Virginia specifically has "sore loser" laws to prevent these things from happening.



You can find some similarities. Both are in 55-45 red districts(in the case of Murkowski her "district" happens to be the whole state) and they both lost in the primary to a extreme right candidate. As for the majority leader thing he could drop it so he can lose his "Washington" label.

I guess one difference might be Murkowski is a bit more moderate then Cantor so he can't try appeal to those middle of the road Democrats(hey you don't want Joe Miller)
Except from the looks of it so far, David Brat is no Joe Miller.
 
Me thinks that you should listen to Chris Matthews a little bit more
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_our_noses_at_tea_party_has_got_to_stop.html

Oh I'm not dismissing the Tea Party. I think they're horrible, and anyone who gives a rat's ass about the future should be very afraid that these people are coming to power. It's like the rise of quasi fascist parties in Europe right now.

Populism is back.

Though that guy Marvolo is talking about seems to be going more for Saudi Arabia than fascist Europe, but still.
 
The Tea Party remind me of the Nazis gaining popularity in Depression-era Germany.

The worse the economy, the more radical parties gain mainstream support.

And considering prominent Tea Party candidates openly and unabashedly say things like gays deserve to be stoned to death, I don't think the Nazi comparison is too hyperbolic.

There is nothing Christian or American about these people. In fact, for how much they claim to be, they seem intent on spitting all over both.
 
Last edited:
You're seeing that... rather literally in Europe, with the neo-Nazi parties actually being elected to office.

Now, I don't think the Republican Party has quite gone that far, but the Tea Party, they're... populist, but it's sort of a unique American brand of ultra-right politics.

In Europe, quasi-fascist parties tend to be more secular.
 
What I'd like to see is Tea Party candidates claiming to be devout Christians and patriotic Americans, and more people standing up to say "the **** you are".

People criticize mainstream Muslims for not standing up and speaking out against Islamic extremism enough, but do people call out Tea Party nutcases for proclaiming themselves devout believers in the Bible and the Constitution while taking giant ****s all over both?
 
To me the problem lies with the Evangelical movement in the United States.

In a way, it's the reverse in Europe. Politics trump religion. In America, religion dictates politics. At least with these Tea Party people.

For the fascists, cooperation or at least compliance of the Church was important, but it was kind of an afterthought. Here, the religion comes first.

Having said that, depending on your interpretation of the Bible, these guys aren't exactly being unChristian. What with the killing gays and what not.

Well, except for the whole "**** the poor" thing, Jesus is quite explicit on that.
 
I had no idea the Tea Party was that....whack. I only knew Ron Paul started it long ago, then it went to like the Far Right and wasn't as Libertarian and it seems to be another wing of the GOP party.


Also, I don't like tea parties, I like coffee parties *rim shot*
 
To me the problem lies with the Evangelical movement in the United States.

In a way, it's the reverse in Europe. Politics trump religion. In America, religion dictates politics. At least with these Tea Party people.

For the fascists, cooperation or at least compliance of the Church was important, but it was kind of an afterthought. Here, the religion comes first.

Having said that, depending on your interpretation of the Bible, these guys aren't exactly being unChristian. What with the killing gays and what not.

Well, except for the whole "**** the poor" thing, Jesus is quite explicit on that.

If Jesus was alive today, the Christian Right and Tea Party would hate him. Some Tea Party nut would kill him all over again.

He's the complete opposite of what they preach.
 
You're giving them more benefit of the doubt than I'm willing to.
 
WWRJD:

2919674484_ed0ebf3c1a.jpg
 
You're giving them more benefit of the doubt than I'm willing to.

I see the religion as a big part of the problem. I don't think they're anti-gay because the Bible is anti-gay, but it does shield them from criticism.

Rather than being openly anti-gay bigots for the sake of being... well, bigots, they can say it's just them being Christian.
 
Even though they're not being Christian.

At best they can say they're being Old Testament.
 
You guys are aware that homosexuality is still a sin in the New Testament right?
 
You guys are aware that homosexuality is still a sin in the New Testament right?

Jesus never at all mentions it. Paul on the other hand...well, you'd think a gay person kicked his dog or something.

I read something the other day dont remember where but it was talking about how christians back then viewed gay sex. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage and procreation was viewed as excess and lust so gay sex in their minds was even farther down that road and the ultimate sexual excess. They simply couldnt comprehend what being gay was or what it meant or that people are born that way. If they knew what we know today they would take a different approach. It goes back to the obvious fact that these people were scientifically illiterate about the human body, our brains, and biology so their opinions on homosexuals shouldnt be influencing us.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,288
Messages
22,080,282
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"