Reptorian @ Reptorian @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

12

Joined

2 yr. ago

Trumpism did have it roots within conservative policies years ago. You can either trace it back to Nixon, or the observation of the political party switch after the Civil Rights movement. The hatred that are seen within Trumpism has always been there. It isn't populism at all, and I'd argue it never has been any more than other political campaign strategies. And yes, there are Reagan voters that proudly support Trump as the conservative mindset of hatred were always there.

The second paragraph is more about pointing to moderate stances leading into Trumpism. How does it do that? By pushing out rhetorics that shines a light into our structures and by simply hiding problems like systematic racism in the name of order. The second paragraph is not about populism, but as a observation of how anything can be argued to be bad.

You need to demonstrate that it's a faceless problem given that younger people are having far more struggles. So far, you failed to provide that case.

From the brief looks in congress.gov, so many legislature that has been voted on by Bernie Sanders also has passed, so there has been some of his policies that aren't dead on arrival. The DOA legislature thing is like criticizing a legislator for not getting things done when political atmosphere prevents said legislator from getting things done. So, I'm not seeing a good jab here. At the end of the day, he opened the floodgates to discussion of socio-economic structure of our society, and nothing should be closed unless there's a very good reason to do so, and that is indeed a positive result, and yes, it shows populism isn't always a bad thing.

Who exactly isn't a problem to you or haven't been a problem? Given that you haven't really responded to the observation that even moderation can be a problem, I'm guessing a moderate, and it would be very easy to spot a policy that is conservative which leads to Trumpism. And you know you want me to avoid pointing that out, and you probably want me to avoid pointing out negative peace issues.

What you're arguing is based on the assumption that populism is and has always been used by demagogues, and as populism is rather more accurately described as a political campaign strategy, it only requires one example to tear down the always assumption. All I need to point out is Bernie Sanders and the results of his works makes it so that understanding the questionable aspect of our own society is not to be seen as taboo, and making healthcare more accessible as well as reducing wage gaps is not a bad thing. In fact, he alone enabled a faster rate of political shift to that direction and removed the taboo of those stances. Your stance should be that populism is questionable, rather than a firm always bad as that can be teared down by examples of people trying to raise the flaws of socio-economic structures.

One could argue anything as bad if it has been used by demagogues. Moderation is even a example. You could argue that moderates enables a form of negative peace by allowing structure of society to retain gaps between people, and arguably leads to increase of gaps by simply pushing asides forces that wants to address those gaps. Moderates could be argued to lead to Trumpism due to those observation.

At the end of the day, what matters is the impact of political strategies and whether they have been used to benefit others. It is how they're used that matters at the end of the day.

So, you don't actually have a case here? Could you please break it down and disseminate that statement in order for it be looked at and with scrunity?

Do you have any evidence that populism is inherently bad? Yes or no? Incidents can be easily rebuked with incidents where populism has allowed progress or improvement into quality of living. So, if incidents is all you have, simply say no.

Populism alone isn't bad. Sometimes, it's the only way to get a perspective or idea out there, and make it not seem like a taboo anymore. And some ideas out there are worth supporting.

2028 would be the earliest that she would be viable on one condition. If millenials and Gen Z voted Democratic nearly 100%. Ideally, this should happen because that would mean 2-3 red states and every other state is blue. So, we're going to have to wait for 2032 at the earliest or 2036 for AOC to have her time to shine. I'd gladly vote for her.

Given the data? 2032 the least. 2028 if millennials and Gen Z voted near 100%. I recall a study that points to only 2-3 red states if every single eligible millenials and Gen Z voted.

It might be a minus. in your eyes, but look at the other candidates we have for the Democratic Party. None of them are anywhere near as appealing as Biden. I'm saying that as some one who voted for Bernie in the primary before, and would flock to vote for AOC. And no, Marianne Williamson is not who I want for president given some of her questionable history though I would happily vote for her at a local level if the other person is a conservative or even a moderate.

This is to be expected from Facebook to be honest. People should drop it despite connections.

I wish I can upvote here, but it never works for me. I'll give you a upvote which you can't see here.