124

No. The outcome is the least important part.

125

The regular definition makes Trumps support even more hilarious. He is elite, but somehow is knows about the “regular folks”. A guy with a gold toilet in his penthouse :rofl:

1 Like
126

I didn’t say anything about money.

Do you deny it rules the country?

It is about the perception.

:rofl: The outcome is why they bend and break it. Power is an outcome.

You have some strange ideas.

127

He is (or was) rich, not elite.

1 Like
128

That might be the definition of populism, but when the word is used in politics today it’s almost always in a pejorative manner, especially if it’s right in wing.

129

We descendants of the “tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore” that worked our asses off for everything we have
Affectionately called the ruling class as “blue nosed elitist scum”.

130

And @TheDoctorIsIn used it as one.

When it’s them doing it, it’s virtuous equity.

131

What’s the difference?

132

:rofl: Think about it.

133

Many parents will do almost anything to help their children . Some will break the law . Should we be happy for children that reaped an ill-gotten benefit just because they had no hand in the crime?

Say I rob a bank ( or better yet… your bank account and all your possessions) - for my children. I put the money in a trust for them. Then I am caught and the money is located. Do our laws then say that the children get to keep the money?

I don’t think so.

But libs pretend that they do and that the children’s innocence is sufficient to deprive the original owners of the property/money/resources/freestuff.
Libs pretend that the children’s innocence should forever require the true owners to relinquish their rights to what was stolen from them.

Our laws have never worked this way. But for prospective democrat voters who get freestuff in return for their vote, libs want such perverted laws to apply.

1 Like
134

I use it as a pejorative, based on the definition I gave.

135

No, I think populism is dumb and dangerous, no matter which side uses it.

You are correct in that I use “populism” as a pejorative, though.

136

Why is it “dumb and dangerous”?

137

It is dumb because it exists only as an ideology in opposition.

It is dangerous because The People are stupid and easily led.

138

President Macron in France is a good example, he started his own political party, ran as a one man show representing the people, yet he is almost never referred to as a populist.

I think the word populism when used today is in line to what a Conservative British novelist broke down the modern usage of the word by the left “We would like to call them racist but were not sure it will work, and were scared; will call them populists”.

1 Like
139

Bingo. This is a yawner. Anything Trump does in the next few weeks will quickly be undone when Biden takes office. I felt the same way with Obama’s last minute executive orders. Trump wasted no time dismantling those he didn’t like. Biden will do the same.

And I’m fine with that.

140

Amazing. You will make a fine member.

Are you “stupid and easily led”?

What ideology does not exist in competition?

141

Is populism not the very basis of democracy?

142

I, like everyone, can succumb to the stupidity pressures of popular opinion. I actively seek to avoid falling down that hole.

Do you really belive that all ideologies require an enemy as a fundemental premise?

143

That’s not what I asked. Do you feel you are less “stupid and easily led” than your fellow citizens?

Name one that doesn’t. Try to stay in context.