Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
you talk as if you're the only one here who follows current events. you're not.
you point to rand paul as if he is THE tea party leader. he's not the one voice for the *party* in the slightest. simply because he said that does nat make it a tea party mantra.
just like you said "if the tea party wins seats* it's not a party, he's not the leader of the party and his words don't represent the *party*
|
I understand that the tea party is not an actual political party that is why I typically refer to them as tea party supported candidates. When I didn't it was simply a mistake on my part or I meant it as a tea party supported candidate.
Maybe it is my opinion. Maybe it isn't. All I know is that it seems like most of the candidates that I am aware of who were/are supported by the tea party (or any number of the tea parties that are out there) all seem to have a similar message. They want less taxes, smaller government, a balanced budget and they want to reduce the deficit. Most of these candidates have not said how they would go about doing so, but that is what they want and many of them have said they will vote against bills/budgets/anything that doesn't support their ideals.
I'm just basing what I said off of that. It isn't just Rand Paul, I used him as an example.
But in the end I guess I don't get the point of your posts. Are you saying that I am wrong and that the tea party supported candidates will simply fall lock step in with the republican leadership and do as they are told? Or are you just in the mood to argue the semantics of what I've posted.