Astroturf Tea

[Hoplite]

I used to at least somewhat like TYT but I've started to get more irritated with them as they've become more popular. Regardless, the clip starts about a minute into the video





So...I thought this whole this was "average Americans" getting angry...It doesnt seem like that's what was behind it.

 

[Josie]

Hoplite, do you believe everyone was paid to attend tea party rallies?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Hoplite, do you believe everyone was paid to attend tea party rallies?

This evinces a very superficial understanding of the situation. They don't have to pay everybody who attended the rallies, they just have to buy enough demagogues to stir the pot.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Isnt astroturf when interested powers that be such as ex: private companies to benefit from deregulation or no reform on healthcare. fund, organise and bus people around to distrupt town halls etc?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Isnt astroturf when interested powers that be such as ex: private companies to benefit from deregulation or no reform on healthcare. fund, organise and bus people around to distrupt town halls etc?

That's exactly what it is.

 

[Deuce]

Hoplite, do you believe everyone was paid to attend tea party rallies?

Here's a good hint: When somebody makes a point, try to avoid putting absolute terms to it like "always," "everyone," etc. Because if they didn't use those words, they probably don't mean those words.

 

[Hoplite]

Hoplite, do you believe everyone was paid to attend tea party rallies?

No, I dont. I just dont buy that this STARTED with a few angry Americans, it's not a grassroots movement

Isnt astroturf when interested powers that be such as ex: private companies to benefit from deregulation or no reform on healthcare. fund, organise and bus people around to distrupt town halls etc?

That's exactly what it is.

Thats not actually what it is. Astroturfing means something that was organized by a business or other professional group but made to look like a spontaneous grassroots movement. The term can extend to marketing as well but is usually used in reference to politics. The OP is case in point.

 

[Josie]

No, I dont. I just dont buy that this STARTED with a few angry Americans, it's not a grassroots movement

It all began with a rant from Rick Santelli on CNBC.



The first "tea party" protests were on February 27, 2009 across the country. I believe the opposite of what you believe...sort of. I think it started as grassroots, but when people saw how popular it was, organizations started to latch onto it for their political purposes too. I don't really understand the uproar about organizations spending money on tea parties. So what? That doesn't mean the people there aren't as angry as they were at the beginning of the tea party protests.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It all began with a rant from Rick Santelli on CNBC.



The first "tea party" protests were on February 27, 2009 across the country. I believe the opposite of what you believe...sort of. I think it started as grassroots, but when people saw how popular it was, organizations started to latch onto it for their political purposes too. I don't really understand the uproar about organizations spending money on tea parties. So what? That doesn't mean the people there aren't as angry as they were at the beginning of the tea party protests.

Do you recall the vitriol against George Soros for spending money on political organizations? The Koch brothers are a wealthier, more political versioin of Soros

 

[Josie]

Do you recall the vitriol against George Soros for spending money on political organizations? The Koch brothers are a wealthier, more political versioin of Soros

Of course I "recall" it. I don't dislike him for spending money, I dislike the organizations he's giving money to. He can give money to whoever he wants. What organizations are the Koch brothers sponsoring and what do you have a problem with?

 

[RightinNYC]

Again, you're just repeating the same things that have been said over and over before as if you're making an innovative argument.

The Tea Party is a populist movement that involves a small group of very wealthy funders, a large group of smaller funders, and a much larger group of participants. This is no different than the corresponding groups on the left.

 

[Guy Incognito]

This is no different than the corresponding groups on the left.

Did you even watch the video? There's nothing wrong with having wealthy financiers promote a political message, but that isn't the issue. The difference between Tea Party and the corresponding groups on the left is that the Tea Partiers actually deny their wealthy backers and claim to be entirely grassroots. It's a fraud to claim greater authenticity, and frankly it shows extremely unethical behavior and lack of transparency on the part of the organizers to mislead their own people like this.

 

[RightinNYC]

Did you even watch the video? There's nothing wrong with having wealthy financiers promote a political message, but that isn't the issue. The difference between Tea Party and the corresponding groups on the left is that the Tea Partiers actually deny their wealthy backers and claim to be entirely grassroots. It's a fraud to claim greater authenticity, and frankly it shows extremely unethical behavior and lack of transparency on the part of the organizers to mislead their own people like this.

I'm not sitting through 20 minutes of videos because anything that's worth saying can be explained much quicker in words. Linking to lengthy youtubes and saying "omg this is outrageous" is a poor debate tactic.

Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics.

 

[Hoplite]

I'm not sitting through 20 minutes of videos because anything that's worth saying can be explained much quicker in words. Linking to lengthy youtubes and saying "omg this is outrageous" is a poor debate tactic.

Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics.

The point is that the supporters of this "grassroots" movement use the claims that they're "grassroots" to seem legitimate. In reality, they arent.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who follow the lead teabaggers that are very sincere about what they believe and honestly believe this was a spontaneous thing. But this is quite obviously not the case.

 

[cpwill]

i strongly encourage hoplite and all left-wingers on these boards to assume that the Tea Party is astroturf. please denigrate them as such as loudly as possible and in public. then ignore them. after all they are astroturf, so you need not worry about them pulling electoral upsets, do you?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No, I dont. I just dont buy that this STARTED with a few angry Americans, it's not a grassroots movement

This is a lie. :shrug:

Thats not actually what it is. Astroturfing means something that was organized by a business or other professional group but made to look like a spontaneous grassroots movement. The term can extend to marketing as well but is usually used in reference to politics. The OP is case in point.

Any evidence the tea party is this or is dishonesty the only thing we can expect here?

 

[Hoplite]

i strongly encourage hoplite and all left-wingers on these boards to assume that the Tea Party is astroturf. please denigrate them as such as loudly as possible and in public. then ignore them. after all they are astroturf, so you need not worry about them pulling electoral upsets, do you?

I really dont. The teabaggers are hardly organized. I'm sure they'll be an influence on certain elections in areas where you have a high population of conservative voters, but overall its moderates that decide the big elections.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I really dont. The teabaggers are hardly organized. I'm sure they'll be an influence on certain elections in areas where you have a high population of conservative voters, but overall its moderates that decide the big elections.

What's a "teabagger"?

 

[RightinNYC]

The point is that the supporters of this "grassroots" movement use the claims that they're "grassroots" to seem legitimate. In reality, they arent..

And once again, "Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics."

 

[Hoplite]

And once again, "Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics."

I posted it at the beginning of the thread.

AFP (Americans for Prosperity) was a big part of the beginning of the teabagger movement. AFP has received serious funding from foundations that the Koch brothers control and dozens of other private interests. AFP was the big kickstart that got the movement going. The movement is an AFP creation, not some grassroots organization.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I posted it at the beginning of the thread.

AFP (Americans for Prosperity) was a big part of the beginning of the teabagger movement. AFP has received serious funding from foundations that the Koch brothers control and dozens of other private interests. AFP was the big kickstart that got the movement going. The movement is an AFP creation, not some grassroots organization.

Whats a teabagger? Why are you so obsessed with it?

 

[RightinNYC]

I posted it at the beginning of the thread.

AFP (Americans for Prosperity) was a big part of the beginning of the teabagger movement. AFP has received serious funding from foundations that the Koch brothers control and dozens of other private interests. AFP was the big kickstart that got the movement going. The movement is an AFP creation, not some grassroots organization.

I really don't understand how that's a rebuttal to my point.

Pretty much every large movement has a generous donor at or near its origin. You're just getting upset about this one because you don't like the movement.

 

[Hoplite]

I really don't understand how that's a rebuttal to my point.

Pretty much every large movement has a generous donor at or near its origin. You're just getting upset about this one because you don't like the movement.

One of the big things that the teabaggers like to claim is that their movement is a welling up of all this "anger" that's hanging around. They say that their movement is a grassroots movement and use that to try to validate their point about it being made up of "angry Americans", they try to hide the fact that the teabaggers are basically just radical Republicans and radical Libertarians.

This thread shows that their movement is not special, it is not the manifestation of angry Americans. It is the result of large amounts of funding given to an organization whose job is to create these sorts of "movements" to support their donor's political preferences.

 

[RightinNYC]

One of the big things that the teabaggers like to claim is that their movement is a welling up of all this "anger" that's hanging around. They say that their movement is a grassroots movement and use that to try to validate their point about it being made up of "angry Americans", they try to hide the fact that the teabaggers are basically just radical Republicans and radical Libertarians.

This thread shows that their movement is not special, it is not the manifestation of angry Americans. It is the result of large amounts of funding given to an organization whose job is to create these sorts of "movements" to support their donor's political preferences.

And once again, "Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics."

You're just posting the same thing over and over again.

 

[Hoplite]

And once again, "Regardless, It's possible for a movement to be grassroots despite the fact that some of the organizational costs are paid for by wealthy individuals. Again, unless you can show how the tea party is wildly different (using hard facts), this just sounds like petty politics."

You're just posting the same thing over and over again.

Thats because you ignored it the first time