• abraxas
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You wrote all that to just be wrong, what a waste of time

    Oh look, you drew a picture where you’re a Chad and I look stupid. You win.

    Is it not common knowledge that TEA in Tea Party was commonly used as an acronym for Taxed Enough Already? That and a number of their other stances were just like I said they were.

    Of course that’s common knowledge. And it fits all-in with what I’m explaining. But it’s also perfectly-tuned to be palatable by the mainstream Republican. That’s why the old discussion between Libertarian and Tea that slowly turned into one part of the Libertarian side “melding” with it and the other absolutely hating it… And then Left-Libertarianism slowly collapsed into a shell of what it used to be. And Right-Libertarianism just isn’t what it used to be.

    I met members of the Tea Party too when they were active in my area

    Members or leadership? Tea is like Pro-Life. The members are preaching a very different thing (many very different things) than the leaders. There are established anti-tax groups in the GOP. When you can join two anti-tax groups, one with white hoods and one without them, taxes might not be your issuse.

    They told me what they were in it for, and what they told me is as I described.

    So they told you they were actually Rank and File moderate anti-tax Republicans and you believed them? So why be part of a fringe group that’s endorsed by extremists if all you want is just what Noem wanted? He didn’t need the KKK to back his message. He didn’t need to go all-in anti-abortion or all-in anti-homosexuality.

    And interestingly, I cited evidence of the “not in any way related to tax” part, and you kinda brushed that aside like it doesn’t matter that Tea is primarily different from the GOP in extremism on non-tax-related issues. And the KKK endorsement.

    EDIT: Just a thought. Maybe “I also talked to a couple members of the Tea party” isn’t sufficient evidence to belittle an interlocutor and call them a 16 year older? One thing I’m not is ignorant about this topic. There may be a middleground whjere we can agree to disagree on things, but an idiot I am not. And you only make yourself look like one when you treat people that way.

    EDIT2: Have a reference. Here’s a book I found by a well-respected Professor explaining the Tea Party’s KKK-like roots, concluding in part that racism is foundational to their ideologies.

    EDIT3: This reference is innocent on its own, but repeats the Billionaires part of my description.

    EDIT4: (this one is a gamble, since you’ll really show true colors if you reject it), the NAACP reference page on the Tea Party with regards to racism. Kinda all on-board with what I’ve been saying.

    So…are college professors, researchers, and the NAACP all 16 years old?