Republican Congresspussies are afraid to face their own constituents

[Kristy]

When the trolls start showing up to rip the left a new one you'll all have a meltdown. Remember, kids - free speech kicks ass until somebody with a microphone says shit you don't like.

Point them out. You. Not your fucking Brietbart propaganda.

[Nitro Express]

Yeah and it will be as successful as the Republican Tea Party was. You guys can have Sarah Palin. She likes to teabag.

[Nitro Express]

Gibsmedats - which is the group crying the loudest - don't understand logic. They just want more FREE shit

What's funny is the Democrat Party threw the poster child for Free Shit Bernie Sanders under the bus for the biggest take money from anyone corporate shill Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ask Haiti how much the Clinton's care about anybody.

[DONNIEP]

Point them out. You. Not your fucking Brietbart propaganda.

You need a hug

[Von Halen]

You need a hug

You mean a slug? As in about 3 oz of lead self delivered into the temple area?

[Kristy]

Is that what your wife did, Von? Kill herself rather than slowly die from AIDS that you gave her?

[Von Halen]

Is that what your wife did, Von? Kill herself rather than slowly die from AIDS that you gave her?

Maybe.

[vandeleur]

You need a hug

Is that like the struggle cuddles you give in your white van to lonely girls :D

[Nickdfresh]

Is that like the struggle cuddles you give in your white van to lonely girls :D

And free candy, at least...

[Kristy]

That only refers to that DOCTOR perv which slave SESH's hypocrisy allows to run rampant on here.

[Terry]

I don't particularly think outside of the fear for personal safety Republican Congressmen are really THAT upset with being shouted at by constituents at Town Hall meetings.

Granted, it probably doesn't feel pleasant, but I equate it to...say, back in 2009 when Wall Street CEOs went to Congress and were publicly chastised by Carl Levin: it's just the cost of doing business or having the job these days. You show up at a public hearing or forum, have to sit or stand for a round of criticism, then fuck on off outta there and go back to doing whatever you want to. If somebody told me I could make hundreds of millions and all it would cost me was a little temporary embarrassment via political theater, I'd be okay with that trade-off.

Plus, most of these Republican Congressman are all too happy to parrot Trump's claim - possibly because they believe it themselves - that the demonstrators at the meetings are planted, paid agitators. I suppose it's much easier to believe that than consider Trump's presidency has awakened some of the public from its slumber, or that any given Republican Congressman has actual constituents who have actual kitchen table concerns over the repeal of the ACA because that would have an actual impact on their lives...and these people can't be placated with propaganda about how terrible the ACA is and aren't falling for the perpetual Capitalism=Free Markets=Government Programs Are Bad=Patriotism=Freedom conservative narrative. Probably because they are smart enough to realize repetitive talking points aren't a substitute for a health care plan, and also smart enough to realize the devil is in the details: the insurance industry-controlled free marketplace with respect to healthcare is not interested in things like pre-existing condition coverage or high deductibles. So the idea of repealing the ACA and going back to what was in place before (which is all the Republicans have to offer when all the anti-Obamacare rhetoric is stripped away) ISN'T appealing to those who have Obamacare...or those who could see down the line where THEY might have a personal use for availing themselves of such a service.

No, it's clearly best for Republicans to keep repeating the belief that the ACA has been a complete disaster from the start, that those who are on it hate it and it's best to just do away with it (and perhaps Medicare while they are at at) and go to some vaguely-defined individual tax credit or voucher system. To think otherwise would be to challenge the beliefs they hold to be true. It's much harder to challenge one's beliefs (and admit mistakes in thinking were made and then adapt when new evidence is presented) than it is to just stay true to what one THINKS one knows to be true.

[DONNIEP]

Is that like the struggle cuddles you give in your white van to lonely girls :D

And free candy, at least...

A - I don't have a van

B - Only fat girls eat candy.

3 - I would make a joke about a purple bicycle but I'm sure somebody would think I was being serious and blah blah blah

[vandeleur]

Man this place could use jokes

[Nitro Express]

I don't particularly think outside of the fear for personal safety Republican Congressmen are really THAT upset with being shouted at by constituents at Town Hall meetings.

Granted, it probably doesn't feel pleasant, but I equate it to...say, back in 2009 when Wall Street CEOs went to Congress and were publicly chastised by Carl Levin: it's just the cost of doing business or having the job these days. You show up at a public hearing or forum, have to sit or stand for a round of criticism, then fuck on off outta there and go back to doing whatever you want to. If somebody told me I could make hundreds of millions and all it would cost me was a little temporary embarrassment via political theater, I'd be okay with that trade-off.

Plus, most of these Republican Congressman are all too happy to parrot Trump's claim - possibly because they believe it themselves - that the demonstrators at the meetings are planted, paid agitators. I suppose it's much easier to believe that than consider Trump's presidency has awakened some of the public from its slumber, or that any given Republican Congressman has actual constituents who have actual kitchen table concerns over the repeal of the ACA because that would have an actual impact on their lives...and these people can't be placated with propaganda about how terrible the ACA is and aren't falling for the perpetual Capitalism=Free Markets=Government Programs Are Bad=Patriotism=Freedom conservative narrative. Probably because they are smart enough to realize repetitive talking points aren't a substitute for a health care plan, and also smart enough to realize the devil is in the details: the insurance industry-controlled free marketplace with respect to healthcare is not interested in things like pre-existing condition coverage or high deductibles. So the idea of repealing the ACA and going back to what was in place before (which is all the Republicans have to offer when all the anti-Obamacare rhetoric is stripped away) ISN'T appealing to those who have Obamacare...or those who could see down the line where THEY might have a personal use for availing themselves of such a service.

No, it's clearly best for Republicans to keep repeating the belief that the ACA has been a complete disaster from the start, that those who are on it hate it and it's best to just do away with it (and perhaps Medicare while they are at at) and go to some vaguely-defined individual tax credit or voucher system. To think otherwise would be to challenge the beliefs they hold to be true. It's much harder to challenge one's beliefs (and admit mistakes in thinking were made and then adapt when new evidence is presented) than it is to just stay true to what one THINKS one knows to be true.

It's all hot air. The protesters, the politicians, and mostly what both do is make a lot of noise and do very little as far as anything productive is concerned.

[Terry]

It's all hot air. The protesters, the politicians, and mostly what both do is make a lot of noise and do very little as far as anything productive is concerned.

My concern with the Town Hall meetings - and all the other demonstrations that have taken place in the wake of Trump's election - is that the protesters who are actually there out of genuine concerns (those being defined as actual residents of the location where the meetings are being held, and are turning up on their own time and own dime to make their voices heard) aren't going to have long-term staying power to actually force a change. That showing up at an anti-Trump protest or a Republican Town Hall meeting and doing a lot of shouting will be approached as a one-time release valve: it feels good to shout at someone in authority, and once the clamor dies down the legitimate protesters come down from their psychological sugar high and conclude changing anything is hopeless because they, being mere citizens, are powerless.

I don't really worry too much if this wave of anti-Trump protests is funded by unelected political operatives, much the same as I didn't worry too much to the degree that the "spontaneous" Tea Party rallies of 2009 turned out to be partly coordinated and funded by various big money conservative donors and groups.

I'd agree that the protests themselves should only be looked at as a first step toward change, which will ultimately be reached (as is so much within the political realm) through legal and legislative means, and those means aren't nearly as exciting as semi-rioting in the streets is. In point of fact, by contrast the legal and legislative processes are quite slow and methodical...definitely not as "sexy" but that's where the hard work needs to happen. Look at Watergate. Nixon withstood 4 years of anti-war demonstrations, disruptions on university campuses and the like. It was the legal process initiated with the arrest of the Watergate burglars followed by 2 years of legislative investigations and legal maneuvering that got Nixon out of there. And it should also be noted that Nixon resigned prior to an Impeachment trial, so who knows how much longer the process would have dragged out had Nixon not eventually capitulated?

Does the current wave of protesters have the stamina to undertake what may end up being several years of demonstrations? Are they better off mobilizing for the 2018 and 2020 elections and getting out the vote? Do the Democrats in Congress have the fortitude and the political will (much less the strength) to launch investigations and build a step-by-step/brick-by-brick case against Trump IF he has undertaken activities that would call for his removal?

Short of all that, I think you could well be right that it will all amount to a bunch of ineffectual noise.