Scary asf

Do you know of any more places I can read/learn about this stuff?

This is what dems are supposed to "unite" with? over an infrastructure bill ffs

Honestly lowkey kinda based from the perspective that politicians are not friends and should be held painstakingly to standards of constituents, I’m not gonna feel bad for some dumbass politician even if the constituents are holding their feet to the fire for asinine reasons. Honestly Democrats should be doing this to their representatives too instead of complaining on Twitter that they aren’t competent enough.

I'd agree if those were actually their beliefs and not just regurgitated talking points from fringe extremist groups

Damn this was refreshing

This isn't based it's idiocy

it's idiots responding to idiots. i don't care and there's no net negative because it's only further self indulgent in a culture that already exists. i will not feel bad for electoral politicans.

I don’t feel bad for politicians at all. I feel bad that the worldview expressed by that nut is so common

Sure, it's stupid, but it's effective for reinforcing that the equivalently stupid politicians are forced to tow the GOP's party line of asinine and stupid politics. Imagine if democrats did this en-masse to Pelosi when she was caught insider trading? Or Manchin/Sinema when they stonewalled and stripped out social policies from the infrastructure bill? Or AOC/Khanna/Jayapal when they failed to do anything notable but fold on the bill? Politicians living in fear of their electorate constituents is virtually the way to ensure they act in their interest - even if said interest is absolutely f***ing moronic

lol

they cornered sinema in a bathroom didn’t they?

Is it fair to say Trump was an American brush with fascist?

Democratic constituents do this stuff as well, like when they protested outside of Schumer’s office. Regardless, I don’t agree. You’re assuming that these constituencies know what their interests are. The fact that working class Trump voters are against social spending proves otherwise. Elites should push back on the masses when they are wrong, just like the masses should pressure the elites when they are wrong.

They did, and I think that type of behavior is ultimately a good thing. I just think it didn't go far enough basically, because as we see the pressure didn't feel real or tangible - if it did she wouldn't' have continued to stonewall aimlessly.

I don't think protesting is meaningful in a generic capacity; the act itself works more when the act of protest has an intrinsically negative relationship with the thing being protested (i.e. union workers refusing to work on strike). The act of protesting alone is symbolic unless it causes an actual tangible pressure of which there is a fear or hesitancy of what may happen if demands are not met or at least latently satisfied. I think the GOP historically has done a better job at this - look at the tea party for example and the mass amount of pressure they exerted on the rest of the GOP through what was in reality very simplistic political posturing.
When it comes to constituents, of course they don't know what their interests are - I don't think the vast majority of democrats do either. But even all the GOP is doing is a childish game of follow-the-leader, they still have somewhat of a sense of fighting political nihilism - in their own minds. Of course in reality they are fighting dumb minor culture wars and getting nothing truly done. That doesn't mean the tactics being used on their side are inherently wrong; in fact, they tend to be quite influential, just in a matter of influential in favor of senseless policies.
While I agree with you it's the place of a leadership class to push back on a population when they're wrong, I think that distinction is a lot less concrete. It shouldn't really be a tug of war between arbitrary positions - it should be a more united push of which the point of the leadership class is to keep ideological unity/clarity, not to arbitrary push and pull against the tides of the constituency for the hell of it. It's much easier for the GOP to unite because they really don't believe anything tangible at their core; so they don't need to consider or gauge "interests" so much as reactions. It's why those tactics fall in line with their leaders so much easier. It's also because, since these things are so malleable for them, there IS a genuine threat of being booted out at any given point from the party. Look at how many non-trump candidates got absolutely decimated by pro-trump candidates in the GOP (a mirror of what happened back with the tea party almost a decade ago now). Democrats just happen to be a mess of a party that can't steer by themselves no less with their supposed constituents.

My city trying to pass an ordinance that says you can't park on your own front lawn

Fair a***ysis. I often notice partisanship tends to make one think their own party or side is weak and hapless while the other one isn't (e.g. Democratic voters think the Dems are weak and the GOP are strong and vice versa). That said, the confirmation bias of voters doesn't preclude either statement from being true. I think the Congressional GOP (Trump only governs from ego so he doesn't fit a***ogy) are more tactically savvy in fulfilling their agenda. A big reason for that is that their agenda is small (cut taxes and regulation, install judges), but McConnell is usually savvy to that end (Dec. 2020 being the rare misstep. However, I certainly don't think it's the case that the Dems, both politicians and voters, are less "in it to win it," less belligerent, or less Machiavellian than the GOP. I've heard many Dems say that "if a Democrat did what x disgraced GOPer did, they'd (receive far worse punishment), and "if the Democrats played to win like the GOP they would (significantly advance their agenda)." Horseshit. "When they go low, we go high" is bullshit. Both parties exist to advance the interests of their voters, and nothing more. One is not inherently more moral or norm-abiding than the other. Parties acting to advance the agenda of their coalition of interests is the whole of party politics, ideology is secondary to it.

😳

What's the context for this? (actually asking for real) Like what was the protest for/where was it? Like obviously significantly different extrapolation if this was at an anti-government rally vs like...anti-aboriginal rights or something

So whole country bout to go red?

please no

anti gov, anything out of australia rn is anti gov

my bad i've been working heavy past couple of days.

I'd post more but yeah was working. I also wish there was a world politics thread bc doesn't really fit in this thread.

don't listen to doomsday media lmao but usually the opposite party picks up votes in the mid terms. but also usually the incumbent wins reelection and trump lost so who knows. it's one year out, lots can change.

I despise the party system.

I just don't wanna live in conservative america

but centrist america is horrid too