We have a radical democracy. Will Trump voters destroy it?

[homersapien 11,447]

11 hours ago, autigeremt said:

🤣that was too easy🤣

Yes, it was.

(But your apparent aversion to a liberal democracy is noted.)

Edited April 30 by homersapien

[autigeremt 6,704]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes, it was.

(But your apparent aversion to a liberal democracy is noted.)

Lmao! 🤣 

[CoffeeTiger 5,179]

9 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

That's the infestation of populism.

As I posted here recently, the left has been highly influenced by populism at least since the early 60s, if not before.  For the right it's been a more recent phenomenon.

The linked to article is correct, so far as it goes.  The problem is that it acts like people who vote for Trump are the only ones who will abandon constitutional principles toot suite for their populist agenda.  Go to any college campus and start asking the students how much they value the 1st amendment if they don't like what the speaker they happen to be listening to is saying.  Then start asking about the 2nd amendment.  Then the 4th, but you have to ask it like this, "Let's say that the FBI is pretty sure that Donald Trump has documents in his house that he shouldn't have.  Should they be able to just kick his door in and find them?"  (If you ask a hypothetical about finding pot in their dorm room you'll get a different reply.  Which is also 100% typical of populism.)

"But Jan 6.!"  Yeah, and Russia, Russia, Russia.  Two different tactics, but with the same goal.  To unseat a legitimately elected POTUS and subvert the will of the people.  Admittedly, Clinton's attempt didn't technically violate the constitution.  But Obama violated it like it was his job.  10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution

Again, that doesn't mean Trump's innocent.  After all, he's—so far, anyway—the ultimate populist.  But the problem won't go away after he does...he's just a man of the times.  The right populist in the right place at the right time.  The fact that the electorate on the right is abandoning principle in favor of populism the way the left already did long ago is the problem.

Populists don't extract underlying principles and apply them hypothetically in a different context.  There's no thought of, "Sure, the FBI should be able to kick DT's door in, but what about when they might be investigating ME?  If I support doing it to Trump, what about if they want to do the same to me?"

Populists just don't think that way.  They feel absolutely justified when they are abandoning principle in order to relate to someone or something they don't like.  And they feel just as outraged when the same boomerang comes back to hit something they like.

For example, Homer will be along shortly to act outraged because I mentioned RRR.  Because, that's (D)ifferent.  It always is with a populist.  And Dems have been populists a lot longer than Rs.

So yeah, Trump supporters probably will abandon the constitution.  Biden supporters already have. They did it back when he was still VP.

 

Your entire post doesn't really make much sense to me. Has there ever been a time in US history where you think hypothetical college students were perfectly principled and had no contradictory belief's about the Constitution or how rights apply to different groups of people? 

The United States constitution was a revolutionary document, idea, and form of government, but throughout our nations history it's kind of been an unreachable 'ideal' for how our nation should run and what rights people have that in practice has never been equally practiced or  applied to all groups of people races, religions, or political ideologies. The US has always had groups of people who's rights were considered more important and better protected than others.

Also, just about every Presidential administration has violated the word and letter of the Constitution in some ways. 

I'm not really buying your argument that Trump and right wing populism today is the reaction to/fault of contradictory liberal college students and because Obama stretched the rules to get people cheap insurance, unpolluted water, and fair internet speeds. 

 

[auburnatl1 5,038]

10 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

That's the infestation of populism.

As I posted here recently, the left has been highly influenced by populism at least since the early 60s, if not before.  For the right it's been a more recent phenomenon.

The linked to article is correct, so far as it goes.  The problem is that it acts like people who vote for Trump are the only ones who will abandon constitutional principles toot suite for their populist agenda.  Go to any college campus and start asking the students how much they value the 1st amendment if they don't like what the speaker they happen to be listening to is saying.  Then start asking about the 2nd amendment.  Then the 4th, but you have to ask it like this, "Let's say that the FBI is pretty sure that Donald Trump has documents in his house that he shouldn't have.  Should they be able to just kick his door in and find them?"  (If you ask a hypothetical about finding pot in their dorm room you'll get a different reply.  Which is also 100% typical of populism.)

"But Jan 6.!"  Yeah, and Russia, Russia, Russia.  Two different tactics, but with the same goal.  To unseat a legitimately elected POTUS and subvert the will of the people.  Admittedly, Clinton's attempt didn't technically violate the constitution.  But Obama violated it like it was his job.  10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution

Again, that doesn't mean Trump's innocent.  After all, he's—so far, anyway—the ultimate populist.  But the problem won't go away after he does...he's just a man of the times.  The right populist in the right place at the right time.  The fact that the electorate on the right is abandoning principle in favor of populism the way the left already did long ago is the problem.

Populists don't extract underlying principles and apply them hypothetically in a different context.  There's no thought of, "Sure, the FBI should be able to kick DT's door in, but what about when they might be investigating ME?  If I support doing it to Trump, what about if they want to do the same to me?"

Populists just don't think that way.  They feel absolutely justified when they are abandoning principle in order to relate to someone or something they don't like.  And they feel just as outraged when the same boomerang comes back to hit something they like.

For example, Homer will be along shortly to act outraged because I mentioned RRR.  Because, that's (D)ifferent.  It always is with a populist.  And Dems have been populists a lot longer than Rs.

So yeah, Trump supporters probably will abandon the constitution.  Biden supporters already have. They did it back when he was still VP.

Favor -  the word populist sometimes gets thrown around in lots of contexts. How do you mean it (ie is it a demograohic or an ideology or mentality - underdog stuff. Or all 3)?

[auburnatl1 5,038]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Sure.

Here's a copy & paste from a recent post of mine on TigerDroppings that lays out exactly what I'm talking about.  This is only a partial copy & paste, so there may be some references in this post that you won't see here, and finally...WARNING: The rules of decorum are a lot looser there.

...If anybody wants to know what I mean when I say the word "populist," I've posted it many times before, but here it is again. A populist:

1. Defines life according to being a victim of The Man. Populists on the left define The Man as "institutional racism," or "white people," or "oppressors," or "colonizers" or "The 1% (remember when that Boogey Man was popular?"

Populists on the right define The Man as "The Deep State," "The Establishment (just like hippies in the 60s)," "The Global Elite," "The GOPe," "The Swamp," etc.

The "nuances" you speak of are only differences in the definition of who the Boogey Man is supposed to be. The commonality is that whoever that Boogey Man is supposed to be, a populist explains everything that happens in terms of that Boogey Man.

A populist on the left explains the fact that black men go to prison at a much higher rate than white men entirely in terms of institutional racism. A populist on the right explains the fact that Trump (who barely won the 2016 election by only around 200,000 votes, and only then because about twice as many people as usual voted for Jill Stein in three states, and given the fact that the Democratic Party—according to the Green Party—got Jill Stein kicked of the ballot in two of those states in 2020, as I have explained before, there's nothing shocking about Trump losing those states in 2020) lost the 2020 election entirely in terms of massive cheating by the Deep State to the tune of tens of millions of fake ballots.

The Man is the explanation for everything, and everything gets blamed on The Man.

That doesn't mean there's no truth to any populist claims, but that’s a discussion for another day. The point is that a populist is quick to take a small grain of truth and blow it up into Mount Vesuvius.
 

2. A populist is willing...nay, eager...to believe ANY and ALL conspiracy theories that support the narrative of victimhood, no matter how outlandish.

Though I'm sure someone will deny it, there were rightist populists here who actually claimed during the Iowa caucus that the "Deep State" had caused the weather to be bad to suppress voter turnout because they thought it would hurt Tump's numbers. Yes, that happened.

As I almost always provide, here's an eerily similar example from the left. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Remember some black people back then claiming that the government caused the hurricane so that Bush could kill some black people? Yep. That happened too.

The takeaway is that populism produces people willing to believe ANYTHING...even something as stupid as the government can control the ******* weather. Left or right, doesn't matter.

Black people have been convinced for decades that the government intentionally sent crack into black neighborhoods to enslave them. Populists on the right are convinced in April 2024 that Biden is allowing illegals into the country to arm them and enlist them in subduing and enslaving the American population.

This is dangerous. Do I need to explain why?

3. A populist has no true basis for determining or advocating for public policy. There are no core principles to follow. In fact, a populist openly scoffs at core political principles. Which is why a populist on the right in 2024 America shares a foreign policy viewpoint with Jimmy Carter, an immigration policy with Pat Buchanan, trade policies with Bernie Sanders, and likes Vladimir Putin. It's why populists want the government to stay out of everybody's business sometimes, but not when they want the government to intervene to stop an employer from requiring a COVID vaccine. It's the same reason conservatives have long scratched their heads about the black community voting 90% Democrat when black people reject most of the values the Democratic Party espouses. It's because they have long been majority populists and Republicans are part of The Man for them.

A populist doesn't care much about constitutional principles and is quick to abandon them if adhering to them gets in the way of sticking it to The Man. Which is why young people today would abolish the 1st Amendment if they could. "Oppressors" saying things they don't like is a bigger issue to them than preserving the 1st.

"White privilege" is a very populist idea. "Leveling the playing field" for a leftist populist is more important than preserving equal justice under the law.

Likewise, populists on the right want government to regulate private companies they don't feel are "fair" when providing a platform for online speech (they are private companies, they have no obligation to be fair).

In short, populism produces people for whom the end justifies any means. There are no limits to what they will abandon to see their agenda through, and there is no thought given to what happens down the road if those principles are abandoned today and the absence of them shows up in a different context.

This is dangerous. Do I need to explain why?

4. Populism—because it revolves entirely around being a victim of The Man and relies heavily upon outlandish conspiracy theories to maintain the narrative—breeds unrealistic and disproportionate levels of discontent.

We have, in 2024, a society with the least racism, most civil rights, best quality of life for the most people, most opportunity, highest degree of freedom, basically the most comfortable and just lives of any society that has ever existed on this planet.

Yet populism has produced a climate in which large numbers of people on both sides of the aisle have concluded that our system is so broken that it literally needs to be torn down. Rarely a month goes by here that someone doesn’t post that we need to toss out the constitution and tear down the government.

And we’re not just talking about poor people (who are almost destined to be populists). We’re talking about people who will rail about these things on their state of the art computers online at work, then go get in their $75,000 truck and drive home to their 3,000 square foot, $700,000 McMansion while sipping a latte they made on their machine at home sitting in their hot tub.

This is dangerous. Do I need to explain why?

So yes, I am anti-populist. I think it’s dangerous. I KNOW it’s dangerous. Change my mind.

 

No interest in changing your mind. I think it’s a harsher definition than I’ve seen and focused on personality type - but I get your point and tend to agree at several levels. Thxs

[CoffeeTiger 5,179]

Because it got mentioned, I went and read through a couple of postings on the TigerDroppings politics forum and man....that place is something else. 

 

And I don't mean that in a good way. lol

[homersapien 11,447]

Back on Topic. 

This is a great interview with Stuart Stevens, a former (traditional) Republican consultant commenting on the current political status of the Republican Party:

 

[auburnatl1 5,038]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Back on Topic. 

This is a great interview with Stuart Stevens, a former (traditional) Republican consultant commenting on the current political status of the Republican Party:

 

Excellent analysis. I’ve heard Stewart before but not nearly at this depth. 

[SaltyTiger 7,860]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Excellent analysis. I’ve heard Stewart before but not nearly at this depth. 

“ They knew Putin helped elect him” 5:20 mark. Good for you to give Brother Homer a big atta boy for posting.

[auburnatl1 5,038]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

“ They knew Putin helped elect him” 5:20 mark. Good for you to give Brother Homer a big atta boy for posting.

I caught that, which I thought wasn’t necessary.   

If it makes you feel any better, Texas is averaging about 3 facepalms on me a week.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

If it makes you feel any better, Texas is averaging about 3 facepalms on me a week.

When was the last time I facepalmed you?

[auburnatl1 5,038]

10 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

When was the last time I facepalmed you?

I was going to look up when you did the last facepalm but this will be easier:

Liberals are just as extreme, dangerous, and incapable of criticism as maga. Especially Bernie Sanders.

Right now.

[SaltyTiger 7,860]

11 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Texas is averaging about 3 facepalms on me a week.

Tex is an ITCHY “wanna be” 

 

[homersapien 11,447]

7 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Tex is an ITCHY “wanna be” 

 

Curious Salty, why do you think Stuart Stevens is funny?

[SaltyTiger 7,860]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

Curious Salty, why do you think Stuart Stevens is funny?

Just snickered at the 5:20 mark. Knew you would be proud. Sorry if you feel offended.

[homersapien 11,447]

7 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just snickered at the 5:20 mark. Knew you would be proud. Sorry if you feel offended.

Offended? Why would I be offended?  I was just curious.  The only political advisor I've ever heard that was funny was James Carville.

And as a political expert, who's to say he's wrong?  Certainly not you or I.