this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
494 points (98.1% liked)
Pleasant Politics
235 readers
818 users here now
Politics without the jerks.
This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read [email protected] for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.
Rules
Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.
All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.
No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The tea party was astroturfed. There's no wealthy PACs propping up a movement of soc dems like AOC
I don't know. It's not directed at you but I think anyone who disagrees with a movement would always find ways and angles to smear it.
Nonetheless, many of what had been advocated by the Tea Party movement-- both social and economic policies-- are still visibly present and implemented by MAGA. So I think even with astroturfing, the goals of those involved in Tea Party had their way.
That's basically the point though, right? Without astroturfing the tea party probably wouldn't have grown into maga. Compare the occupy wall st movement (as mentioned below)-- there was no corporate backing so it fizzled as soon as popular support couldn't sustain it. But money kept pumping into the tea party and it eventually metastasized into maga.