The Daily Beast Newsletters Crossword SUBSCRIBE LOG IN ALL Cheat Sheet Media Obsessed Royals Politics Opinion Power 100 Innovation U.S. News Scouted HOMEPAGE Politics Dem Senator John Fetterman Spotted at MAGA Dinner With Major Trump Ally CROSSOVER EPISODE The Democratic senator also walked back an earlier X post calling out his own party. Julia Ornedo Julia Ornedo Reporter Published Jun. 10 2025 11:09PM EDT fb icon twitter icon email icon reddit icon U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). Nathan Howard/Getty Images Senator John Fetterman was reportedly spotted at a MAGA hangout in Washington, D.C. with ultra-conservative strategist Steve Bannon. The Pennsylvania lawmaker was seen on Monday dining at the D.C. establishment Butterworth’s–which has become MAGA’s favorite restaurant—with Matthew Boyle, Washington bureau chief of the right-wing Breitbart News Network, according to Politico. Fetterman was later joined by Bannon, President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, “for a good 20 minutes or so,” Politico reported. A spokesperson for Fetterman told the Daily Beast that the senator’s run-in with Bannon was unplanned. Fetterman Rips His Own Party for ‘True Chaos’ in L.A. NOT A FAN William Vaillancourt FEtterman The Democratic senator stirred speculations about a party switch earlier this year after he met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago and repeatedly broke from his colleagues to side with Republicans on issues including a Trump-backed spending bill and the Laken Riley Act. Fetterman stepped further away from his party this week when he ripped Democrats over their response to the protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles, which became the site of heated clashes between law enforcement and demonstrators. Scenes from the protest that broke out late last week included officers firing rubber bullets and tear gas into crowds as protesters threw rocks and set self-driving cars on fire. Law enforcement fire less-lethal munitions at protesters during clashes outside the federal building in Los Angeles, California Federal agents clashed with crowds in a Los Angeles suburb Saturday, including shooting flash-bang grenades, as the protests stretched into a second night Saturday. Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images “I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that,” Fetterman said in a now-deleted post on X. “This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.” On Tuesday, Fetterman appeared to back down, telling NewsNation that his post wasn’t intended as a critique of the Democratic Party. “When people are setting cars on fire and damaging buildings and going at members of law enforcement, that’s not free speech, that’s not protesting. That’s just illegal behavior. And you know, we can’t ever be quiet, or we can’t defend that,” he said. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit back at Fetterman. “I think that if Sen. Fetterman or anybody else is concerned with law and order, we should be looking at one of the most law-breaking agencies and administrations that we’ve seen in the United States,” she told reporters. “We also have a convicted felon in the White House.”
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment