Do you understand that politicians being scared of the masses is not the same thing as being scared of a small group of nutters?

[goaded]

I pointed out to someone (I can't remember exactly who) that Republican policymakers are scared of defying Trump because of his supporters. They said that was a good thing, the government should be afraid of the people.

If they'd been referring to millions of people turning out onto the streets, that would be one thing, but what these politicians are scared of is some random Trump supporter taking pot-shots at them.

Do you agree there's a difference?

In my opinion, politicians should respect this...

Million Man March

... and not this...

Attack on US Capitol and democracy

No anonymous opinions, please. Say it, own it.

It's right that politicians should change their vote because they're scared of being assassinated

It's wrong for politicians to change their vote based on fear of violence

See results

[Danzigdawson]

Masses usually protest peacefully and use their numbers to make it clear that there is a problem. The size of the crowd is the "intimidation", so to speak. The more people join, the more politicians feel alienated and pressured to do something about it.

It's generally legitimate: most people won't unite with just about anyone else unless there's a very serious, unifying issue or a very impopular government.

The true believers in MAGA are not by any means a majority of people in the United States. Nutters within the MAGA crowd have shown that they're not affraid to harass perceived enemies, send death threats, attack or even kill oponents and attack governmental institutions.

They often use violence and intimidation. They don't just want their enemies to hear them: they also want them to fear them. MAGA protests or counter-protests have always been filled with right-wing jihadists in full tactical gear, holding assault rifles.

Let's face it: the strenght of fascists and authoritarian is always artificial. They may have a lot of people who back them, but they know it will never be the majority of any given population.

When they can't get what they want by appealing to the masses —which is almost always what happens— they'll use targeted violence and intimidation.

MAGA is terrorism.

[msc545]

I think that it is right for politicians to be responsive to what people want. It is wrong for people to express what they want by making threats of violence as apparently Trump supporters do...

[goaded]

Exactly.

[dustybiker2]

Yes.

[dustybiker2]

The difference is the type of people we are referring to. They are taking a piece of information and blow it out of proportion. They yell about it as loud as possible until it starts to be believed. They do this to politicians all of the time. Find someone they worked in the same building with (might never have met them) who was connected to someone who was connected to someone who was falsely accused of abusing a child and cleared.

Next thing you know they are blasting loud ads on youtube and every other tv app about the guy being a child predator.

Meanwhile the loser republican (Mike Garcia) takes a snap of himself sitting in a military fighter jet and implies himself a patriot pilot.

They literally did this to the guy who beat out the republican seat back in cal this past election. Whitehall (?) dem won regardless of the complete fabrications. People in cali, among others, see straight through bs which is why republicans despise that state.

[dustybiker2]

I clearly wrote this before breakfast.

[sawno]

They should be beholden to their voters so in that sense its a good thing that they fear their supporters will turn their back. They should not however be going off of a vocal minority like we have seen with the whole LGBT hijack.

Trump supporters are not the violent ones though, show me the case of an assassination attempt on Biden. Happened to Trump by democrat voters, and no don't give me the registered republican crap he only did so to primary Trump with no other connections.

How about the recent left wing blue hair girl in drag saying that if they don't make it a safe space for trans people "Trans people will make this a very unsafe space".

There's examples of your side doing this. I'm sure it happens on all sides but its a heck of a lot less on the Trump side.

[goaded]

The minority that are willing to commit violence for Trump is much smaller than the 25 million people who turned out for BLM against the murder of civilians by the government.

[exitseven]

A million people came to Washington at their own expense to protest a stolen election in 2020. President Trump was overwhelmingly voted back into office and since he has been keeping promise after promise his approval ratings are getting higher by the day. This is what politicians are afraid of.
Maine Governor Mills got an earful from President Trump over the weekend. She has approved men competing in women's sports in direct defiance of federal law. After the federal government cuts off funding to Maine schools the voters will take a dim view of Mills' refusal to follow the law and being the cause of having their schools defunded.
The voters will have the last word.

[goaded]

No, they didn't. Just look at all the grass in that second photo. The crowd is all in a tiny fraction of the area needed to contain hundreds of thousands of people. They were in the tens of thousands, at most.

[exitseven]

There are people in other areas. The million people was a conservative estimate. The best photos were of the March to the Capitol. It went on for a mile.

[goaded]

It was not a conservative estimate (unless you mean it was made up by conservatives). There was nothing like a million people there.

While we're at it, it was not all "at their own expense", there were millions of dollars spent on the "protest", including getting people there.

"Budget documents show as much as $3 million for Jan. 6 rally and related events"
eu.usatoday.com/.../

"And $300,000 was budgeted for speaker fees and travel for VIP speakers and a busing program to bring in rallygoers within a 180-mile radius. "

[exitseven]

Where did the 3 million dollars come from? I know somebody who went there to protest and he went on his own dime.

[goaded]

"an unnamed organization". Click the link! eu.usatoday.com/.../

[goaded]

Maybe this person:

"Top Trump Fundraiser Boasted of Raising $3 Million to Support Jan. 6 “Save America” Rally"
"Caroline Wren, who had worked on the Trump campaign, told associates she distributed funds to a number of political organizations backing the rally, including Tea Party Express and Turning Point. "

www.propublica.org/.../top-trump-fundraiser-boasted-of-raising-3-million-to-support-jan-6-save-america-rally

[overlord337645]

its a representatives job to do what is morally right no matter what they matter the most not because they are special but rather because they are leaders in society if they can't hold true to what they say despite the danger that comes with the job then mabie they should find some other place to work at I mean giveing into demands because of violence only leads to bad outcomes and signals they are weak and not fit to lead under pressure

[Avicenna]

As usual, goaded expects us to accept his nonsensical propaganda. It's extreme leftists who expect people to be intimidated by them screaming the loudest or them engaging in violence, whether it be from Antifa, the Democrats' paramilitary wing, Nazi Hamas supporters on college campuses, or mobs (Democrats love mob rule).

Most politicians are corrupt and don't want any sunshine on their corrupt activities- that's what they're really afraid of.

[ProbablyClueless]

I agree that there's a huge difference, but I think the historical record has pretty well shown that the violent crazies are more on the left than the right.

[goaded]

Nope. Not in the last few decades, at least. Timothy McVeigh, and most of the mass shooters since then have been right wing. Hell, Islamist and IRA terrorists are right wing, too, and there were plenty of them in the 1970's and 80's.

25 million people turned out for BLM, and half the killings were by the right then, too.

[ProbablyClueless]

And on the other side you have people like the unibomber, Mangione, Lee Harvey Oswald, Che, Stalin, etc... I don't think politicians are generally making decisions in fear of the McVeighs of the world.

The Left has been much more effective in using their terror to effect change.

[goaded]

Stalin was the government! Yes, Republican lawmakers are afraid of making decisions in fear of the McVeighs of the world.

[ProbablyClueless]

Stalin BECAME the government, but he didn't start that way. You should read up on Stalin! He was in the government much the way McVeigh was. Lenin very specifically said that he didn't want Stalin to be his successor.

And the Republicans might be a little bit afraid, but not very. The McVeighs of the world simply aren't a particularly big or politically powerful group.

[goaded]

Terrorists don't have to be "a particularly big" group, but they're politically powerful by means of their death threats against any Republican who opposes Trump.

[ProbablyClueless]

They kind of DO need to be a particularly big group though... At least, they need to be bigger than a few hundred people. Tha'ts how they get their political power.

[goaded]

There are things like the guy who claimed to have planted bombs at an event (and the homes of two attendee's families), for having the temerity to suggest that principles like democracy and the peaceful transfer of power are more important than political parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFhunDschIo

[ProbablyClueless]

Of course there are bad, inappropriate and aggressive behavior that come from the right. I would have to be insane to deny that. I'm just saying that I don't think politicians are generally making decisions based on those more radicalized elements.

[goaded]

They say they are. Romney said so in his book, talking about the senators voting on Trump's second impeachment. It's being reported that it's still going on now.

"According to one source with direct knowledge of the events, North Carolina senator Thom Tillis told people that the FBI warned him about “credible death threats” when he was considering voting against Pete Hegseth’s nomination for defense secretary. Tillis ultimately provided the crucial 50th vote to confirm the former Fox & Friends host to lead the Pentagon. According to the source, Tillis has said that if people want to understand Trump, they should read the 2006 book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work."
www.vanityfair.com/.../trump-congress-political-violence

[ProbablyClueless]

That's your proof? Mitt Romney told you that someone who won't speak on the record claims to have insider knowledge that someone else with insider knowledge told him (the first person) that Thome Tillis was scared?

If an angry parent approached you one day as you were picking up your child from school and told you that they wanted you to discipline your kid because another parent told them, that their kid told them that another kid told their kid that your kid was bullying people; what would you say?

[goaded]

That's your argument? That people who only support Trump because they are scared of being assassinated aren't willing to come out publically and say they're scared of being assassinated?

[ProbablyClueless]

I'm not the one making a claim. I don't need to prove a negative. But to your point, these are public figures, remember? In the context of this situation, it's a pretty reasonable belief that a public figure who fears for his life would make a stronger statement than what you've offered about fearing for his life.

[goaded]

Romney didn't say he feared for his life (he's independently wealthy enough to pay for security for himself and his family), he said other senators were. Likewise, the Vanity Fair article has sources that want to remain anonymous obviously BECAUSE of the threats of violence.

That's how political violence works.

[ProbablyClueless]

And that makes the claim Romney's making even less credible because every single one of those people can obtain protection from government staff or hire their own people. None of them has the excuse of not being able to protect themselves.

Again, even if everything you're saying is true, the fact is that these people are public figures. If anyone was genuinely fearing for their life, somebody would have made a stronger, better attributable statement than that one.

[goaded]

No, they can't. How many people can you pay to risk being shot at for you if you earn $174,000 a year? The Secret Service does NOT protect lawmakers.

Scared people don't do the thing they're scared of. What's wrong with you?

[ProbablyClueless]

1. I didn't say secret service would provide them with guards.
2. It is absolutely fucking hilarious that you think those people only make $174k per year.
3. Again, these people are public, elected figures; the rules are different for them.

[goaded]

Of course, they're magically immune from the types of people who tried to kill Trump.

[ProbablyClueless]

Those types of people were left wingers.

[goaded]

Not really, but either way, they were "lone wolves" driven by an atmosphere of acceptance of political violence. Like, say, the El Paso killer.

[ProbablyClueless]

Actually, it's pretty undeniable that they were leftists. Although the atmosphere of political violence thing is also undeniable. You should do more research into those guys.

[goaded]

So should you, starting with Trump calling for violence against protesters.

[goaded]

www.theatlantic.com/.../

[Jamie05rhs]

The only people calling for violence are Democrats.

[goaded]

No, they're not. That's a lie.

[dustybiker2]

You need to do your own research. This is something you've been told. lol

[goaded]

www.theatlantic.com/.../

[dustybiker2]

@goaded if it wasn't so heavily documented it would be almost unbelievable

[goaded]

@dustybiker2 ten years ago, perhaps.

[Dargil]

I understand that I should not be scared of DSC's, so long as I am armed.

[purplepoppy]

What if the masses are nutters?

[goaded]

That's where it all falls down, you see.