Who?mikejones! said:

---

Lol. That may be your definition of populism, but it's not shared with any mainstream definition.

---

Haha, it's the actual definition and NOT the "mainstream" definition. Hope this helps.

Phatbob said:

---

We are a Republic, not a democracy for a reason.

---

See where this has been covered. And we are a constitutional republic based on a representative democracy.

We are not just simple majority rule to avoid the downfalls of populism. But when enough people express their will for a change, then that populist movement will result in a change… either to who runs the government, what laws are in place, and rarely to the point of amending the constitution.

If you are fine with a ruling elitist class, then maybe America is not your jam.

So you agree then that your making your own definition up.

Thanks

Tom Fox said:

---

We created that government to represent those that had skin in the game. Not everyone.

---

No we did not. We actually setup a very unique system whereby the minority position has a overweighted position to keep populism run amuck from happening.

But there was not an intent for 6% of the population to dictate the rules to the other 94% as you suggested the FFs did.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

So you agree then that your making your own definition up.

Thanks

---

Maybe find a dictionary my friend.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

We are a Republic, not a democracy for a reason.

---

See where this has been covered. And we are a constitutional republic based on a representative democracy.

We are not just simple majority rule to avoid the downfalls of populism. But when enough people express their will for a change, then that populist movement will result in a change… either to who runs the government, what laws are in place, and rarely to the point of amending the constitution.

If you are fine with a ruling elitist class, then maybe America is not your jam.

---

The founders were fine with 6% getting to vote. Is that a ruling class?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

We started a representative govt. And one specifically that protects from the "will of the people."

See: the senate, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, the separation of powers and so forth

Yes, we created a democratic system so the people could have a voice. We specifically did not give said people the power to rule through will and that idea is something the framers would probably laugh at

---

How do you have a voice if it is not ever heard. Reread what you are saying here.

Sure you can vote, but only along these certain guidelines that the ruling elite has defined for you.

The checks you mention are both to prevent pure populism AND to prevent a perpetual ruling elite.

It's not that hard. If you give up the desire to just be right versus have a discussion, you may see that you can be better informed.

Or die on the sword of America was founded upon the ideals of the lords and nobles commanding the serfs to follow their will.

Cause that seems to be your understanding of our government.

Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

We are a Republic, not a democracy for a reason.

---

See where this has been covered. And we are a constitutional republic based on a representative democracy.

We are not just simple majority rule to avoid the downfalls of populism. But when enough people express their will for a change, then that populist movement will result in a change… either to who runs the government, what laws are in place, and rarely to the point of amending the constitution.

If you are fine with a ruling elitist class, then maybe America is not your jam.

---

The founders were fine with 6% getting to vote. Is that a ruling class?

---

Is there a better definition?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

So you agree then that your making your own definition up.

Thanks

---

Maybe find a dictionary my friend.

---

Likewise.

Populism isnt the "will of the people."

The dictionary definition is

A political movement that claims to represent the common people, especially those who feel their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

2. A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who believe that their needs and interests are ignored by the elite.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

We started a representative govt. And one specifically that protects from the "will of the people."

See: the senate, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, the separation of powers and so forth

Yes, we created a democratic system so the people could have a voice. We specifically did not give said people the power to rule through will and that idea is something the framers would probably laugh at

---

How do you have a voice if it is not ever heard. Reread what you are saying here.

Sure you can vote, but only along these certain guidelines that the ruling elite has defined for you.

The checks you mention are both to prevent pure populism AND to prevent a perpetual ruling elite.

It's not that hard. If you give up the desire to just be right versus have a discussion, you may see that you can be better informed.

Or die on the sword of America was founded upon the ideals of the lords and nobles commanding the serfs to follow their will.

Cause that seems to be your understanding of our government.

---

I do not support universal suffrage. The average American is an idiot.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

So you agree then that your making your own definition up.

Thanks

---

Maybe find a dictionary my friend.

---

Likewise.

Populism isnt the "will of the people."

The dictionary definition is

A political movement that claims to represent the common people, especially those who feel their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

2. A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who believe that their needs and interests are ignored by the elite.

---

Then how do you define "will of the people"? In a manner that excludes the above?

Did we not start this whole USA experiment because "the ordinary people believed the elitist (British monarchy) ignored the needs and interests of the colonists?

Are you just trolling me now? Cause I cannot make sense on what you think populism is and isn't since you posted definitions that reflect what I have been saying for now manage of posts.

Tom, I can absolutely agree with you there.

I actually support having a higher standard for suffrage.

I also think we need much stronger processes for recalling elected officials who cease or never did reflect the will of the voters who elected them.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tom, I can absolutely agree with you there.

I actually support having a higher standard for suffrage.

I also think we need much stronger processes for recalling elected officials who cease or never did reflect the will of the voters who elected them.

---

I am for that as well.

See, we can be rationale and agree on things.

There is much more common ground than what exists outside of it. People just tend to get hyper focused (me included) on areas they are passionate about.

Will of the people could be described just as the democratic will.

Populism is very specific. That's what im trying to say. Its not simply the will of the people. It usually has aspects of "us vs them," usually some version of common man v elites


Obviously, trump is leading a populist movement in maga right now. He clearly used the us vs them argument and got elected.
Obama, otho, i don't consider a populist. That was much more a majority democratic will campaign.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tom, I can absolutely agree with you there.

I actually support having a higher standard for suffrage.

I also think we need much stronger processes for recalling elected officials who cease or never did reflect the will of the voters who elected them.

---

I third that.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Will of the people could be described just as the democratic will.

Populism is very specific. That's what im trying to say. Its not simply the will of the people. It usually has aspects of "us vs them," usually some version of common man v elites


Obviously, trump is leading a populist movement in maga right now. He clearly used the us vs them argument and got elected.
Obama, otho, i don't consider a populist. That was much more a majority democratic will campaign.

---

Yeah I mean if we are simply defining populism as "will of the common man", then it's obviously a moving target. Is Bernie Sanders a populist? If not currently, would he magically become one of he were elected in 2028?

Because whether you like it not, there's a good amount of overlap in the Venn diagram between Bernie supporters and Trump supporters. If it weren't for the institutional cheating that he faced in the democratic primaries (which Trump did not), it's very possible he could have been elected POTUS. Maybe not probable but absolutely possible.

I see where you are coming from on that, particularly regarding Obama.

I do think "Hope & Change" and its leader Obama was a populist movement. But it is indeed not as clear as the is v them was sort of old guard v new guard and not left v right.

But I think we may just be splitting hairs on how we view the term populism. And nothing wrong with that.

Populism is a tricky term but an important one. As we seem to be failing as a Country from a disastrously poor understanding and execution of how our government should work… according to the US Constitution, the intent of our Founding Fathers, our 250 years of experience.

We should get back to some basics, then sit down and decide if that is what we still want. That was how our Country was intended, from a very very simple take.

Good points.

Why would we not want the country as the founders created it?

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

That is a very dangerous proposition. Take a good look around the world and tell me it will work out well.

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor/consulting class. Generally these people all know each other, interact in the same insular social circles, and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 "sub-groups" they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

Edit: I would also throw a large portion of the Ivy League crowd in this definition.

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population? I think the average joes version of elites is much more expansive.

This is where I will stray from the textbook.

I don't necessarily agree one can be a populist. I think populism is a tool. Or maybe its a constant underlying theme to be taken advantage of. Its not necessarily a platform.


Bernie is a socialist, but uses the same populist machinations that Trump does. Same for aoc.
All three of them employ the us vs them language, just using different categories

The venn diagram, as you said, has lots of overlap. That's why AOC should scare more people on the right thay she does. Not because shes a particularly good politician, but the language she uses will resonate with many voters. And many of those voters could be former Trump voters who voted for him in an effort to punish the elites.


Also, im specifically rejecting the definition of populism as the will of the common man.

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population?

---

I suppose so. I mean "infinitesimal" might be putting it a little strongly but broad strokes.

What is your point there? I've hopped back on this thread after skipping a good bit.

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population?

---

I suppose so. What is your point there? I've hopped back on this thread after skipping a good bit.

---

They are claiming populism is largely the populace taking back control from the elites. I think the standard definition of who is considered elites by the masses is much more expansive than your definition.

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population?

---

I suppose so. What is your point there? I've hopped back on this thread after skipping a good bit.

---

They are claiming populism is largely the populace taking back control from the elites. I think the standard definition of who is considered elites by the masses is much more expansive than your definition.

---

Well some people would simply throw all rich people into the "elite". I would not agree with that. I mean I would say basically all the people I mentioned in those 3 groups are certainly wealthy, but not all wealthy people are in those groups, obviously. Not by a long shot.

Who else do you think they would include outside the very wealthy?

This gets at why populism does t work without guardrails. The definition of the ruling class / elitists can and almost certainly will change. This would be like running the government on an elementary school class president basis.

Our Country requires populism to work, but ensures that there are checks and balances.

A key point we have now is one of those checks, the judiciary, thinks their role is a superior one.

If that persists, the will of the people will support movements to bring the judiciary back in line.

This has happened every 50 years or so in our country.

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population?

---

I suppose so. What is your point there? I've hopped back on this thread after skipping a good bit.

---

They are claiming populism is largely the populace taking back control from the elites. I think the standard definition of who is considered elites by the masses is much more expansive than your definition.

---

Well some people would simply throw all rich people into the "elite". I would not agree with that. I mean I would say basically all the people I mentioned in those 3 groups are certainly wealthy, but not all wealthy people are in those groups, obviously. Not by a long shot.

Who else do you think they would include outside the very wealthy?

---

Having money does not make one elite in my opinion. It requires access to power and being accepted inside of the ruling class.

If you are talking billionaires, yeah sure they are part of the elite. I again think a lot of people would say the top 1% are the elite. That is ridiculous on its face.

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Jet White said:

---

I think one consistent thread between left and right "populism" right now is "the elite versus the people", they just disagree on how you deal with that problem. But I do think that has been one constant that isn't moving anytime soon.

---

What defines the elite?

---

Good question and I think the answer might differ by who you ask. I would define the elite as the very intermingled political (federal specifically), media, and donor class. Generally these people all know each other and often slither back and forth between these worlds. Regardless of which of the 3 groups they sit in, there just isn't very much entrance or exit of people from the group as a whole, very much by design.

If that makes sense.

---

So an infinitesimally small portion of the population?

---

I suppose so. What is your point there? I've hopped back on this thread after skipping a good bit.

---

They are claiming populism is largely the populace taking back control from the elites. I think the standard definition of who is considered elites by the masses is much more expansive than your definition.

---

Well some people would simply throw all rich people into the "elite". I would not agree with that. I mean I would say basically all the people I mentioned in those 3 groups are certainly wealthy, but not all wealthy people are in those groups, obviously. Not by a long shot.

Who else do you think they would include outside the very wealthy?

---

Having money does not make one elite in my opinion. It requires access to power and being accepted inside of the ruling class.

If you are talking billionaires, yeah sure they are part of the elite. I again think a lot of people would say the top 1% are the elite. That is ridiculous on its face.

---

I would agree completely. Wasn't speaking for myself at all. Just my interpretation of what might be the "standard definition of the masses".

Deleted tweet from earlier

"Some of" my posts.

TyHolden said:

---

Deleted tweet from earlier

---

It's not been deleted. Good for him. He did go too far.