Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
17. Well, they're angry with Schumer for what they may feel is betrayal.
Wed Jan 24, 2018, 02:24 AM
Jan 2018

They went out on a limb, defending their party to the hilt against everyone, maintaining that the shutdown was not the fault of the Democrats, that this was a Republican shutdown, that the Republicans are in total control, that the Dems have no control over the budget, that Trump reneged on the DACA deal he'd made with Schumer & Graham, etc.

Then all of a sudden, Schumer gets a "promise" to debate something on the floor...and moving up the CHIP funding to be in this bill. Making all of the rank and file protestations in defense of the Dem Party a joke. This "deal" makes it appear to some that the Dems were in fact the ones holding things up, that it was their shutdown all along.

So they're angry at the one who left 'em at the dance, holding a bag of doggie poo. McConnell was never AT their dance, so not mad at McConnell. McConnell laid a trap and got a bite, is all that he did. Typical Repub manipulation.

In some ways, what happened is not that different from some people jumping on board the Republican trap to oust Franken. Some people just don't seem to be very savvy about Republican manipulation.

But the anger is temporary. It'll blow over, IMO. They're expressing their anger at the one(s) who left 'em at the dance. They're not going to be protesting at the house of someone who didn't bring 'em to the dance.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The crap we're in for in ...»Reply #17