Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York
Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts
Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan
Did they place politics over America? That seems so Republican. This infrastructure repair is badly needed.
They are the Democrat equivalent of the Tea Party. Extreme progressives from safely Democrat districts whose views are not broadly reflective of the party but whose media presentation has the ability to steer the car into the railing. I genuinely believe conservative talking heads who give this group outsized coverage are attempting to create the progressive monster in reality they claim is threatening the country.
But yeah they put politics first. The infrastructure bill was the product of bipartisan negotiations. Naturally, extremists on both sides weren't happy with the results. The $3.5T version of the Build Back Better bill became the place where many of the measures landed that more progressive politicians wanted in the infrastructure bill. Demanding both bills be voted on together was cheap politics that hurt the Biden Admin, frankly.
Extreme progressives aren't good for the country any more than extreme conservatives are. Nor extreme populists, which, let's be fair, is a tautology.
Nor extreme populists, which, let's be fair, is a tautology.
Interesting addition.
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other. It's a bit like the label "atheist". No one wears their lack of belief in Ra on their sleeve or expects to be recognized as a-theistic towards Ra. Or Zeus. Or the thousands of other gods one doesn't believe in nor care about. Choosing to be called an atheist is energizing the electron and elevating it's state. Choosing to be called a populist is likewise elevating the state from one of political non-identity to oppositional identity. The very concept of being a populist requires opponents. One can be a Democrat or Republican in a political vacuum but the same doesn't hold true for being a populist.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Nov 07, 2021 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other.
Whoa. You made that definition up all by yourself? Interesting. Who gets to decide what is enough and what is not enough? You? Just like you decided that there was not a Holocaust?
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other.
Whoa. You made that definition up all by yourself? Interesting. Who gets to decide what is enough and what is not enough? You? Just like you decided that there was not a Holocaust?
pop·u·lism - a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
You can't be a non-extreme populist. Populism requires opposition. It is not a positive political stance FOR defined political values or based on political ideology. It evaporates when times are good and people stop caring about politics.
One can be a Democrat or Republican in a political vacuum but the same doesn't hold true for being a populist.
Whoa. You made that definition up all by yourself? Interesting. Who gets to decide what is enough and what is not enough? You? Just like you decided that there was not a Holocaust?
pop·u·lism - a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
But, you decide what is enough dedication and what is not enough dedication? Would a widow with two kids be subject to the same standard as a bunch of white guys who rant on a forum for their own entertainment?
You get to decide that if the populists are not engaged enough, that they are inherently extreme? You have declared that being a populist is ONLY extreme. No wonder people think you are a revisionist and holocaust denier.
pop·u·lism - a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
But, you decide what is enough dedication and what is not enough dedication? Would a widow with two kids be subject to the same standard as a bunch of white guys who rant on a forum for their own entertainment?
You get to decide that if the populists are not engaged enough, that they are inherently extreme? You have declared that being a populist is ONLY extreme. No wonder people think you are a revisionist and holocaust denier.
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other. It's a bit like the label "atheist". No one wears their lack of belief in Ra on their sleeve or expects to be recognized as a-theistic towards Ra. Or Zeus. Or the thousands of other gods one doesn't believe in nor care about. Choosing to be called an atheist is energizing the electron and elevating it's state. Choosing to be called a populist is likewise elevating the state from one of political non-identity to oppositional identity. The very concept of being a populist requires opponents. One can be a Democrat or Republican in a political vacuum but the same doesn't hold true for being a populist.
Choosing the label populist is choosing an extreme political identity. If you weren't an extremist, you'd find a home in a political ideology or just not care enough to self-label. It inherently requires one to view government as broken and for one to be in opposed position to said broken government. It's why it doesn't take much to turn populist rallies into riots. That applies to populists who are drawn from the right and the left.
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun Nov 07, 2021 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But, you decide what is enough dedication and what is not enough dedication? Would a widow with two kids be subject to the same standard as a bunch of white guys who rant on a forum for their own entertainment?
You get to decide that if the populists are not engaged enough, that they are inherently extreme? You have declared that being a populist is ONLY extreme. No wonder people think you are a revisionist and holocaust denier.
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other. It's a bit like the label "atheist". No one wears their lack of belief in Ra on their sleeve or expects to be recognized as a-theistic towards Ra. Or Zeus. Or the thousands of other gods one doesn't believe in nor care about. Choosing to be called an atheist is energizing the electron and elevating it's state. Choosing to be called a populist is likewise elevating the state from one of political non-identity to oppositional identity. The very concept of being a populist requires opponents. One can be a Democrat or Republican in a political vacuum but the same doesn't hold true for being a populist.
HOLY SHEEEEEE-YIT!
You really believe this, don't you? You are not just playing cartoon characters on a message board. You really, really, really believe this, right?
Choosing the label populist is choosing an extreme political identity.
WOW!
I have seen a lot of hateful and awful stuff on this board. You are winning a prize here, honor. Wow. I am not even sure what to say. I can't imagine waking up every day and going about living in the world with this level of vitriol.
By definition, non-extremists populists don't exist. That category is occupied by people who don't care enough to have an active opinion one way or the other. It's a bit like the label "atheist". No one wears their lack of belief in Ra on their sleeve or expects to be recognized as a-theistic towards Ra. Or Zeus. Or the thousands of other gods one doesn't believe in nor care about. Choosing to be called an atheist is energizing the electron and elevating it's state. Choosing to be called a populist is likewise elevating the state from one of political non-identity to oppositional identity. The very concept of being a populist requires opponents. One can be a Democrat or Republican in a political vacuum but the same doesn't hold true for being a populist.
HOLY SHEEEEEE-YIT!
You really believe this, don't you? You are not just playing cartoon characters on a message board. You really, really, really believe this, right?
Yeah. I believe if you assume the label populist you are assuming an extreme political stance that does not exist in a non-extreme state.