Huge Win for Biden Today

[Cultellus]

Cultellus did that very thing himself in this thread by adopting the aims of socialism as the motivation of his ideological views even while expressing disgust towards socialism. T

No. I did not adopt the aims of socialism. If I say that fair pay is ONE example of something that populists want, I am not adopting the aims of socialism.

You would do well to understand what you think, and answer questions based on what you think, without making crap up about other people. I tried to make this point to you in a lot of different ways. I called you a holocaust denier, just because I made it up and because frankly, you had never said that you were not a holocaust denier. The point is, I was making crap up, just like you are making crap up. The difference is, I was being ridiculously absurd, LOL , while you are pretending to be scholarly and google research expert and you are totally serious when you lie about the things I say and think.

So, honor. Let's do this again. Why don't you answer the questions about populists and populism, without imagining what I think or referencing what you think I think? Just, you know, answer it with your own conclusions. That would be so much better than you trying to read minds like you have some special ass priesthood or something. Cool? We good, little buddy?

In the meantime. I am not taking a binary position on populism, you are. I am not taking a corruption position on elites, you are. I am not priming or pumping the violence, you are. I have no clue why you need someone else to be responsible for all your notions.

[honorentheos]

Denial and ignorance are no grand excuse. You've presented all the standard characteristics of populism yet deny saying the textbook definition verbatim as if that means anything.

Please. You are an extremist with extremist views. And you toss around veiled threats of violence almost out of habit how.

You are who you present as, cultellus.

[Cultellus]

You are insane. I have not threatened violence.

I am pushing back against your insults and the ideas that you are assigning to me, because they are absurd.

And now, you are saying that I threaten violence out of habit?

honor, you really need to read this and consider what you are doing and saying. I have NEVER threatened anyone with violence. You continue say these things, without backing it up. I am not sure what it is you that you are trying to achieve.

[honorentheos]

To add to the above, when you answered the question of what you were for, the answer was wage and wealth parity. That is a fleshed out aim of socialism. You freaked out when this was pointed out and showed disdain for socialism as an ideology. What's left then on the table? Nationalism. I know you think populism covers that but, again, the thin centered ideology that is populism is an inflection not a robust ideological position. It merely frames the divide between the people from the elites as the sheep from the goats. While you don't seem to understand what populism is as a thing to be studied, you offer up a rather stark portrait of what it is, how it functions as an add-on ideology, and the way self-identifying as such is openly embracing extremism.

[Cultellus]

To add to the above, when you answered the question of what you were for the answer was wage and wealth parity. That is a fleshed out aim of socialism. You freaked out when this was pointed out and, showed disdain for socialism as an ideology. What's left then on the table? Nationalism. I know you think populism covers that but, again, the thin ideology that is populism is an inflection not a robust ideological position. It merely frames the divides the people from the elites as the sheep from the goats. While you don't seem to understand what populism is as a thing to be studied, you offer up a rather stark portrait of what it is, how it functions as an add-on ideology, and the way self-identify as such is openly embracing extremism.

You asked for AN example, not every example. You said that by being for parity that I was actual anti. Nationalism is not something I brought up. I actually refused to give you more examples because of how you twisted things. I did not freak out. If there are overlaps with socialist ideals and the populists, that is something you are free to discuss or point out. You did not. You just twisted my response, AN example, and manipulated it.

Go delete your post, above.

[Cultellus]

To add to the above, when you answered the question of what you were for, the answer was wage and wealth parity. That is a fleshed out aim of socialism. You freaked out when this was pointed out and showed disdain for socialism as an ideology. What's left then on the table? Nationalism. I know you think populism covers that but, again, the thin centered ideology that is populism is an inflection not a robust ideological position. It merely frames the divide between the people from the elites as the sheep from the goats. While you don't seem to understand what populism is as a thing to be studied, you offer up a rather stark portrait of what it is, how it functions as an add-on ideology, and the way self-identifying as such is openly embracing extremism.

Being a populist is not openly embracing extremism. You make this claim, but you do not support it. You make this claim about me, and it is not true. Now go delete your post.

[honorentheos]

You seem unhappy. I'm sorry you feel this way. But let's be clear. Noting adopting populism is to be radicalized into extremism isn't a personal attack. It's been much debated and supported in the thread. You may not like that but such debate is what the board exists to facilitate.

The sole defining characteristic of populism as a thin centered ideology is the division of corrupt elites from the people, who are good. You've presented this very ideas and framework in the thread multiple times while denying their significance. But that's extremism. There is no room for gray between elite and the people. The line is hard and bright.

[Cultellus]

You seem unhappy. I'm sorry you feel this way. But let's be clear. Noting adopting populism is to be radicalized into extremism isn't a personal attack. It's been much debated and supported in the thread. You may not like that but such debate is what the board exists to facilitate.

The sole defining characteristic of populism as a thin centered ideology is the division of corrupt elites from the people, who are good. You've presented this very ideas and framework in the thread multiple times while denying their significance. But that's extremism. There is no room for gray between elite and the people. The line is hard and bright.

I do not think the elites are absolutely corrupt. There is room for "gray area." There is not a hard line.

[honorentheos]

You seem unhappy. I'm sorry you feel this way. But let's be clear. Noting adopting populism is to be radicalized into extremism isn't a personal attack. It's been much debated and supported in the thread. You may not like that but such debate is what the board exists to facilitate.

The sole defining characteristic of populism as a thin centered ideology is the division of corrupt elites from the people, who are good. You've presented this very ideas and framework in the thread multiple times while denying their significance. But that's extremism. There is no room for gray between elite and the people. The line is hard and bright.

I do not think the elites are absolutely corrupt. There is room for "gray area." There is not a hard line.

But they never overlap the people.

[Cultellus]

I do not think the elites are absolutely corrupt. There is room for "gray area." There is not a hard line.

But they never overlap the people.

Now THAT is binary. I disagree with it.

There are cases where the interests of the minority and of the majority overlap, even when those groups are defined as elites or non-elites.