Listen to this article 2 min Democratic lawmakers say their voters are enraged at the lack of ability to counter President Donald Trump's agenda, with some saying they could resort to "violence," Axios reported Monday. The outlet says it spoke to over two dozen House Democrats to measure the temperature of the Democratic base. What it found was red-hot anger and a burgeoning desire to circumvent the rule of law, where explanations that Democrats simply don't hold enough power in Washington fall on deaf ears. "We've got people who are desperately wanting us to do something... no matter what we say, they want [more]," Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., told the outlet. Most of the lawmakers spoke on condition of anonymity. Schneider's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. ELON MUSK SAYS US IS RULED BY 'PORKY PIG PARTY' AS TRUMP DEFENDS HIS VISION AGAINST FORMER ALLY'S CRITICISM Jeffries speaks at US Capitol House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries rallies Democrats against the Republican budget plan on the House steps at the Capitol in Washington. (AP/J. Scott Applewhite) "Our own base is telling us that what we're doing is not good enough... [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public," one such lawmaker said. Another said their constituents are convinced that "civility isn't working" and that they should prepare for "violence... to fight to protect our democracy." A third lawmaker described some of the messages from people online as "crazy ****," saying that some told them to "storm the White House and stuff like that." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. TOP DEMOCRATS ADMIT ‘FAILURE,' FECKLESSNESS ON BORDER IN SCATHING NY TIMES REPORT Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill. wearing a blue tie Rep. Brad Schneider said Democratic voters want "more" resistance to Trump. (Reuters/Sarah Silbiger) Another lawmaker compared Democratic voters to the "Roman coliseum." "People just want more and more of this spectacle," the lawmaker said. Other constituents have insisted that lawmakers take on the risk themselves, with one lawmaker saying they were told they should be willing to get "shot." "What I have seen is a demand that we get ourselves arrested intentionally or allow ourselves to be victims of violence, and... a lot of times that's coming from economically very secure White people," another lawmaker said. What this means (Analysis) Scorched earth policy following civil war efforts, cause: by fish out of water movements following political losses. Activist politics go outside of political norms leading to power trips, power grabs, and power lust.
-
-
-
-
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