Who Supported Ron Paul and Does Not Support the Tea Party Movement?

I was not able to support Ron Paul, because of some really dysfunctional ideas which he holds. Likewise, I could not throw my full support behind the 912 project, due to one objectionable principle which is core to their platform.

However, the "First Principles" of the tea party movement are something that I can support:

• Fiscal responsibility
• Lower taxes
• Less government
• States rights
• National security

This however, caused me to become curious about one thing. It occurred to me that if I could support the tea party movement and not Ron Paul, there could exist out there people who supported Ron Paul but do not support the tea party movement.

So, I ventured into DP -- a hotbed of Ron Paul support during the last election -- to see if those people do in fact exist.

If you do exist, please tell me why you loved Ron Paul and don't love the tea party movement.

 

The list is onerous: States rights and National security are distinctly opposite objectives - Fiscal responsibility would entail sacrifice as taxing, heaven forbid, the wealthy - less government so General Motors can reissue stock without pension or wage obligations....and of course health reform per Insurance Institute of America.

Is Ron Paul a fan of Sara Palin might also be an interesting question.

Brown shirts and swastikas are all they are lacking.

 

Breeze Wood:

Your post was so poorly written that I can't tell whether you were a supporter of Ron Paul's candidacy or not.

If you can hold yourself together long enough to respond, please answer that question.

 

It may be that the Tea Party Movement is not "edgy" enough for Ron Paul supporters. From when they began, they had a reputation of being friendly little get togethers for rich conservative Republicans (at least that was my impression). For many Ron Paul supporters, that's just b-o-r-i-n-g. I haven't been paying attention lately, but have the Tea Parties accomplished anything? I does seem they may be evolving into something bigger, I think. If you're a supporter, what do you like about these tea parties?

 

Voted for Ron Paul, only to later find my state threw away ballots that voted for Ron Paul.

No I do not support Tea Baggers.

Ron Paul's ideas are fantastic, Tea Baggers have no idea which way is up or down.

 

I supported Ron Paul and yes I do not support the "Tea Party Movement." I think it's stupid, a waste of time, and something that was hijacked a long time ago by the GOP.

The people who attend are also usually stupid and simply going to oppose Obama because they think he's the antichrist. It's a good way of maintaining the red vs. blue mentality that keeps us from understanding politics.

This movement is based on the same emotions that got BO to the white house. Sorry, but I'm not a knuckle dragger. I don't want to be associated with knuckle draggers either.

I don't want anything to do with Republicans.

 

So, other than invective, can anyone state a reason why they supported Ron Paul, but do not support the tea party movement?

 

The tea party is anti-intellectualism at its best; practically begging sarah palin to be their de facto leader.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the federal department of education because every year since its inception has seen a decline in the quality of education. KNOW FOR A FACT, the instant they want to make education better, they would...Not like they don't have the money for it...Or can just print it out of thin air

Oh right, he also wants us to get back to a money system that represents something and get rid of the current system where ever $1 you earn, you OWE $1.10 to the federal reserve. Unlimited cyclic debt is a no-brainer bad idea. Put your money into assets, not in digital currency (which is all we have right now in our banks).

Tea party members havent denounced our foreign policies en masse yet.

I could go on and on, but that would spoil the fun for you, Will.Spencer, to go out and do some research on your own.

 

Maybe because Ron Paul stood for something and Tea Parties do not?

Now of course, the origins of the Tea Party movement, before the GOP hijacked it and while it was a very "Paultard" thing at the time, did indeed have meaning. Us Paultards were consistent in our beliefs, and thus our criticism of others did not make us hypocrites. That can't be said, however, about the current tea party movement (see the end of Traditione's post).

 

Ron Paul at least on paper opposes the Federal Reserve or rather requests auditing them. Both Republicans and Democrats alike are equally protective of the interest of the Fed.

The Tea Party Movement IMO does little and beats around the bush so to speak while Paul IMO addresses the main issue which has led to the national debt and continues to suck money out of the American budget.

That is not saying once in office Paul would in fact continue to do what he has been eagerly gaining support for.

 

Will always support Ron Paul. That man has some good, and sometimes wacky, ideas. And he can't be bought off like 99% of the other politicians out there.

The Tea Party movement does have some good messages, but if they continue to make Sarah Palin the poster girl, then I want nothing to do with them.

 

There is nothing wacky about believing in the Constitution if you believe in the rule of law.

 

Ron Paul, and his ilk will never own the White House. If you want real change in America, you first must appeal to the base of one of the two major radicalized encampments in this country. That, in and of itself is a difficult task due to the fractous nature of these groups (Gay fiscal conservatives, Pro life fans of the "morality" of Welfare, etc,etc etc) Once you've acheived the nomination of one of those two parties by essentially promising more of the same in mixed messages and half truths, you then must recant everything you just said to appeal to the middle for the general election. Then, assuming you got elected to office, you would have to kill several sacred cows to make any real changes, which means both your base, and the opposing party will now be turning on you. If you are a hell of a charismatic sales person, perhaps you make a few big changes and hopefuly they work out so generations in the future do not curse your name.

Regarding the OP, Tea Party values are no where near as extreme as the views held by Ron Paul. For instance, Paul believes in an isolationist foreign policy and wants to do away with the Fed. Tea partiers would be happy if the government could stick to a budget. In fact, fiscal responsibility seems to be the single strongest value which holds them all together. It explains why their positions on all the other issues (Abortion, etc) are not all that clearly stated. If they maintain their one issue stance, they will be a powerful force that will be able to make or break candidates in either party by holding them accountable for their views and actions on big government. If they get overly mired down in immigration reform, or abortion, or god in schools, or any other distracting issue, they will probably loose a lot of the momentum they currently have. If they try and front their own candidate, it would require their party to take a stance on all these other issues, which would probably be a looser for them.

Regarding Palin and the Tea Party, she is the right person, in the right place, at the right time. I suspect a lot of Americans, and Tea Party people in particular, are sick of being treated like idiots by their president, or by Wall Street, or by Congress. Somehow, the people who claim they "know better" don't seem to be much affected by a real unemployment rate around 20%. It looks like Palin is sticking to mostly common sense statements in her speeches, and the more hatred the left dumps on her, the more people rally to her side. If she, and the tea party, are smart enough to remain vocal while staying out of the actual candidacy competition, they may turn out to be the most powerful force in American politics for some period of time.

 

I think that the Tea Party is smart to work from within the context of the Republican Party. At this point and juncture, a third party will not work. So, basically you have two parties, Republicans and Democrats, and the Independents.

The biggest issue with the Republicans is that they don't have a party platform. When you vote "Republican" you vote for the candidate and not the party. There it becomes an issue that you have the RHINOS (Republican In Name Only). So, the tea party can come out in the primaries and support the the candidates that best identify with the "tea party" objectives. Rather than endorsing a political ticket.

The system is a mess. The representative is supposed to represent the voters and the party shouldn't be held hostage to personal views.

The open primaries also turn the Republican party into a mess. But that's another discussion.

Another issue is that Americans want all the "freebies" from big government but don't want to pay for it. It's kind of suprising to find a lot of people that support President Ronald Reagan and Rep. Ron Paul to have voted for Barry Obama.

 

Maybe .......................

 

I would have NO problems doing away with the Fed....

Hell, I would be happy at this point if we could AT LEAST audit what they are doing....

 

Tea Parties are not smart because the issue we're supposed to be focusing on is distracted by and transferred to mere political parties, and worse even, mere figures (Obama).

Instead of focusing on the system which allows for out of control spending, we point fingers at who's in power and who spent how much on what. No, stop being stupid. You can't blame those evil democrats for wanting some health reform while you support the hundreds of billions that go into our hundreds of military bases around the world, as well as the costs associated when we actually use them for the wars we're now involved in.

Obama is doing economically only what the current system calls for. If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with the system.

 

This message has been brought to you by the Nate for President election campaign 2012.

 

Yes, but what I'm saying is that there are indicators that in fact Mr. Paul could be (just like so many) controlled opposition. It appears to me that there is a strong field of support around the Federal Reserve from ALL sides and I strongly doubt that they will just sit there and allow someone to mess with their agenda.

 

IMO TeaParties are just "feel good" events which miss the point completely. A few issues dear to the hearts of the attendees (gun control), a ton of talk about socialism (Socialism is just a name, we are dealing with a greater enemy which is a pyramidical shift) and a lot of goofs with misspelled signs.

Something working against the people, dividing us further and accomplishing absolutely nothing but wasting our energy being busy and not noticing the real enemy draining us while becoming so insanely rich that the entire U.S. budget will be a fraction of their financial power.

Our money can no longer be reembursed in Gold. it is merely legal tender. So it is sort of an allowance that we get from the banks of the world and as time goes by, their power increases and ours shrinks.