Huge Win for Biden Today

[honorentheos]

If you insist that the populists are extreme, merely for not pledging allegiance to YOUR affiliation and ideology, you will get a reaction. You mentioned riots being the natural evolution of the populists. Riots, in our past and recent history, have included death and bloodshed. You, honor, introduced that into the conversation. Own it.

Populism - like any oppositional political identity - is a powder keg that is easily manipulated and set off. Here you go again threatening violence as the outcome of populists not getting their way. But what is their way? You don't know. "People". "The Majority"? "Hope and Change"? Not until the leader tells you.

I pointed out that extremist rallies (not just populists) are easily turned to riots, and you threatened a riot. Adorable.

[Cultellus]

One meaningful thing populists are FOR, cultellus. Too easy.

Do you remember the discussions about populism in October 2016? Including your own? Do you recall that the Brexit vote had happened? And do you recall that it was a populist movement?

If you cannot imagine even one meaningful thing populists are for, you are not being serious, even a tiny bit. If the foundation of your argument is that everything they do is ANTI, you are nothing but a new-topic raging lunatic like those carrying on about Utah Lighthouse Ministries, Signature Books, Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses, while pinning personal assaults on Gerald and Sandra Tanner, George Smith and Jon Krakauer. You changed topics, but you are nothing but a disciple of McConkie and Packer.

Answer: Wage and Wealth Parity.

The list could be huge. Play fetch with someone else.

[Cultellus]

If you insist that the populists are extreme, merely for not pledging allegiance to YOUR affiliation and ideology, you will get a reaction. You mentioned riots being the natural evolution of the populists. Riots, in our past and recent history, have included death and bloodshed. You, honor, introduced that into the conversation. Own it.

Populism - like any oppositional political identity - is a powder keg that is easily manipulated and set off. Here you go again threatening violence as the outcome of populists not getting their way. But what is their way? You don't know. "People". "The Majority"? "Hope and Change"? Not until the leader tells you.

I pointed out that extremist rallies (not just populists) are easily turned to riots, and you threatened a riot. Adorable.

I am not threatening anyone.

Did you make that quote up, about the powder keg?

[Cultellus]

...You think that anyone that is not in your church/political group, has a negative oppositional identity. I do not agree....

Huh. I don't get your disagreement, as that's the single most common position I have read in any of your recent posts. Anyone not agreeing with you has been described by you over and over in really disgusting terms as having a "negative oppositional identity."

You do realize that other governments have more than two parties, right? And other parties exist in America too, right?

do you?

Is this why you delete your posts? You realize that you are complaining about the things YOU do?

I realized in the New Jersey thread you were not reliable or honest, now I see it extends across the board. Read your own posts, man. Your the worst offender.

None of this is cogent.

[MeDotOrg]

Populism favors the people. People are passionate for their families, jobs, homes, economies, countries and liberties - and many other things.

Let's break that down, with the cart before the horse:

People are passionate for their

• families
• jobs
• homes
• economies
• liberties
• many other things

Therefore

• Populism favors the people.

What does it mean to say people are passionate? Does it mean thoughtful? Well-informed? No. Passion is showing or caused by strong feelings or a strong belief.

When you are controlled by your passions, you are vulnerable to being manipulated by them. Passion is visceral. It is limbic. When you feel passionate, you feel alive. Trump used to talk about the passion at his rallies, and it is undeniably true. There is something incredibly validating about being surrounded by thousands of people who feel the same kind of passion as you. There is a limbic rush, group certainty.

Populism can exist on the left or on the right, and the other side is the enemy, not a political rival. In the year 2021 in the United States, populism is primarily a right-wing phenomenon, but that is not the case in all places and all times (think Huey Long).

Feeling passionate about something doesn't mean you understand it. It just means you feel strongly. When the collective focus of those passions revolve around a single person, you have a demagogue, either on the right or on the left.

Populism may or may not favor the people, but that is not the point of Populism. The point of Populism is to provide an answer, to provide certainty. It is the salve that passion craves.

[honorentheos]

One meaningful thing populists are FOR, cultellus. Too easy.

Do you remember the discussions about populism in October 2016? Including your own? Do you recall that the Brexit vote had happened? And do you recall that it was a populist movement?

Brexit was a populist movement? Joking. Remind me of conversations from 2016 about the topic of populism. I have views that align with the inefficacy of politicians but not populism. They aren't synonymous while you seem invested in making all things outside the small tents of the Democrat or Republican political parties "populism".

If you cannot imagine even one meaningful thing populists are for, you are not being serious, even a tiny bit. If the foundation of your argument is that everything they do is ANTI, you are nothing but a new-topic raging lunatic like those carrying on about Utah Lighthouse Ministries, Signature Books, Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses, while pinning personal assaults on Gerald and Sandra Tanner, George Smith and Jon Krakauer. You changed topics, but you are nothing but a disciple of McConkie and Packer.

Do? It's the identity of populism, what it means to be a populist that defines populism. What populists "do" is, to use the phrase from your quote, "discursive".

Answer: Wage and Wealth Parity.

Last I checked this was the political aims of socialism. Was Brexit about wage and wealth parity? Did Trump (the one person besides yourself you've noted can be attributed to at least faking being a populist) campaign against Joe Biden on the platform Joe was against wealth and wage parity while Trump had spent the last four years working with Congress to ensure Washington facilitated greater wealth and wage parity? Was his tax reform bill he helped push built on this?

Look, I know the Trump thing above is a dig given you aren't a Trump fan and don't believe he gave two flips about wage and wealth parity except so far as it may threaten his wealth. But you said that with so much confidence it implies you believe this is what populism is FOR. Yet people using populism as political strategy fail to realize it as an outcome. So it seems that whatever you may think about this as a foundational plank of populism, populism really is just framing this is "elites have while we lack. Down with the elites!"

[Marcus]

Huh. I don't get your disagreement, as that's the single most common position I have read in any of your recent posts. Anyone not agreeing with you has been described by you over and over in really disgusting terms as having a "negative oppositional identity."
do you?

Is this why you delete your posts? You realize that you are complaining about the things YOU do?

I realized in the New Jersey thread you were not reliable or honest, now I see it extends across the board. Read your own posts, man. Your the worst offender.

None of this is cogent.

of course you would say that. But it is cogent, you just can't deal with the inconsistencies between how you post and how you attack other posters. It's apparent from reading your recent posts that you attack others for things that you excuse in yourself. I saw your post where you acknowledged you were a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I am sorry you experienced that, but you acknowledged it in a post attempting to explain yourself for your approach.

I am trying to say this delicately, but it is difficult to acknowledge and accommodate that admission from you, as you have apparently asked people to do by mentioning it, while you viciously attack others for their posts here. Are you the only special one? That is a rhetorical question, because everyone has a past. Your insistence that your past be acknowledged while you attack every other person here tells me you really don't see yourself as a functioning adult.

You see yourself as a special person, who deserves special treatment. Unless you really are seven years old, that ship sailed, dude.

[Cultellus]

Do you remember the discussions about populism in October 2016? Including your own? Do you recall that the Brexit vote had happened? And do you recall that it was a populist movement?

Brexit was a populist movement? Joking. Remind me of conversations from 2016 about the topic of populism. I have views that align with the inefficacy of politicians but not populism. They aren't synonymous while you seem invested in making all things outside the small tents of the Democrat or Republican political parties "populism".

If you cannot imagine even one meaningful thing populists are for, you are not being serious, even a tiny bit. If the foundation of your argument is that everything they do is ANTI, you are nothing but a new-topic raging lunatic like those carrying on about Utah Lighthouse Ministries, Signature Books, Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses, while pinning personal assaults on Gerald and Sandra Tanner, George Smith and Jon Krakauer. You changed topics, but you are nothing but a disciple of McConkie and Packer.

Do? It's the identity of populism, what it means to be a populist that defines populism. What populists "do" is, to use the phrase from your quote, "discursive".

Answer: Wage and Wealth Parity.

Last I checked this was the political aims of socialism. Was Brexit about wage and wealth parity? Did Trump (the one person besides yourself you've noted can be attributed to at least faking being a populist) campaign against Joe Biden on the platform Joe was against wealth and wage parity while Trump had spent the last four years working with Congress to ensure Washington facilitated greater wealth and wage parity? Was his tax reform bill he helped push built on this?

Look, I know the Trump thing above is a dig given you aren't a Trump fan and don't believe he gave two flips about wage and wealth parity except so far as it may threaten his wealth. But you said that with so much confidence it implies you believe this is what populism is FOR. Yet people using populism as political strategy fail to realize it as an outcome. So it seems that whatever you may think about this as a foundational plank of populism, populism really is just framing this is "elites have while we lack. Down with the elites!"

honor, you asked for one example. You did not ask for all examples, or the only example, or an empirical example. You are terrible at the Socratic method, get a lesson and come back when you can swim with big fish. Ciao for now. I playing along with the rapid fire direct, but now you are just being a retard and a nuisance. Ciao Bella.

[honorentheos]

honor, you asked for one example. You did not ask for all examples, or the only example, or an empirical example. You are terrible at the Socratic method, get a lesson and come back when you can swim with big fish. Ciao for now. I playing along with the rapid fire direct, but now you are just being a retard and a nuisance. Ciao Bella.

You didn't provide an example of something populism is "for" but rather something socialism is for that populist strategies use in fomenting outrage in the opposition to elites. Populism is not defined by it's ideological views on wages and wealth parity. It's defined by status differential into which the topic of wealth disparity plays.

You may as well have said a chicken in every pot and then walked off. Or a toy in every stocking. A car in every garage? A message in every inbox?

[Cultellus]

honor, you asked for one example. You did not ask for all examples, or the only example, or an empirical example. You are terrible at the Socratic method, get a lesson and come back when you can swim with big fish. Ciao for now. I playing along with the rapid fire direct, but now you are just being a retard and a nuisance. Ciao Bella.

You didn't provide an example of something populism is "for" but rather something socialism is for that populist strategies use in fomenting outrage in the opposition to elites. Populism is not defined by it's ideological views on wages and wealth parity. It's defined by status differential into which the topic of wealth disparity plays.

You may as well have said a chicken in every pot and then walked off. Or a toy in every stocking. A car in every garage? A message in every inbox?

Got it. By being against disparity, they are, in your opinon, dystopian antagonists crusading against democracy. If, they are advocating for something like an honest and competitive wage, they are socialist and not populists. You have designated the items that populists can be for, without also being against something, and that list that you are willing to accept has zero items on it.

By asking for something that they are for, you are merely waiting to denounce it as being anti the opposite of what they are for. That is clever, but not interesting. Actually, it is not even clever. It is just weird.