Pelosi: Populism is a Threat to Democracy

[jonmx 2,429]

 

This is a ridiculous statement on it face, but it is a theme which has been thrown around intellectual circles for the last five years or so.  It is akin to saying Freedom is a threat to Liberty, because Populism is the very essence of Democracy.  

Since the beginning of time, the main battle is always between the powerful elites and the interests of the people.   The natural state is the powerful elites usually win and leads to some form of highly oppressive authoritarianism.  

With the incredible advancements in technology, it is becoming shockingly easy for a very few to track and control the masses.  We are nearly to the point where everything in our lives could be easily restricted.  Our finances could be cutoff, our transportation could be shut down, our communications can be monitored and controlled, our movements can be tracked.   

It is not populism which is the threat to people, but elitism.  I cannot even fathom how any rational thinking human-being can not comprehend this.  But here we are with a country filled with cultist bootlickers cucking for the corrupt elites.  

[weepaws 3,197]

Of course she’s wrong, just look at her, she looks so evil.  

[RLLD 4,232]

 Populism is typically at odds with elitism.

It makes perfect sense that someone such as Pelosi would fear it.   Unless....that populism was feeding her power.  And people like Pelosi are pointedly about power, and lying to you in order to strengthen her power. 

Populism is a threat to authoritarian people like Pelosi......   not sure who is the more despicable.....her, McConnel or that coward Schiff.....

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,109]

4 hours ago, RLLD said:

 Populism is typically at odds with elitism.

It makes perfect sense that someone such as Pelosi would fear it.   Unless....that populism was feeding her power.  And people like Pelosi are pointedly about power, and lying to you in order to strengthen her power. 

Populism is a threat to authoritarian people like Pelosi......   not sure who is the more despicable.....her, McConnel or that coward Schiff.....

Schiff is a disgusting sack of sh#t.

Fun Fact:  He's lied more times than Trump.

[The Real timschochet 6,777]

She’s right. 

[jonmx 2,429]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

She’s right. 

LOL....you are such an easily manipulated idiot.   Populism is Democracy.  Populism threatens elitism (not Democracy) and all the power-hungry greedy bastards behind it.  

[RLLD 4,232]

15 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Schiff is a disgusting sack of sh#t.

Fun Fact:  He's lied more times than Trump.

I doubt he lied more than Biden has though

[IGotWorms 4,058]

You’ve already done this stupid thread, jon.

Populism needs to be guarded against. The “tyranny of the majority.” The founding fathers knew this, that’s the whole reason we have the bill of rights and so forth. Separation of powers as embodied in the US Constitution.

Guess you hate that? And yes, you probably do, since you’re just a Russian troll.

[The Real timschochet 6,777]

19 hours ago, jonmx said:

LOL....you are such an easily manipulated idiot.   Populism is Democracy.  Populism threatens elitism (not Democracy) and all the power-hungry greedy bastards behind it.  

You’re aware that the Nazi Party was elected, right? 
 

There is a reason that our Founding Fathers avoided a pure democracy and preferred the election of officials who would serve terms of office and decide issues (a republic): because the public isn’t informed enough to decide complex issues. They will inevitably choose the laziest, most simplistic, easiest choice to any difficult question: And that is why populism is so dangerous. 

[jonmx 2,429]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re aware that the Nazi Party was elected, right? 
 

There is a reason that our Founding Fathers avoided a pure democracy and preferred the election of officials who would serve terms of office and decide issues (a republic): because the public isn’t informed enough to decide complex issues. They will inevitably choose the laziest, most simplistic, easiest choice to any difficult question: And that is why populism is so dangerous. 

Right vs. Left is an idiotic distinction.  Elitist authoritarian bastards that you bootlick for don't give a crap about right vs. left.  It is elitist authoritarianism vs. the people.  Always has been, always will be. 

[Stryker Ryker 188]

Anything Pelosi says you should ignore. The fact that her & Biden are in prison already for the treason they’ve committed is outrageous. I swear if I ever get elected & they’re still alive I’m throwing them in jail, freezing their accounts, putting them on a no fly list, seizing their property under imminent domain & giving it back to the ppl, & will revoke their freedoms 

[squistion 2,203]

Why we should care what Pelosi thinks about populism? 

[Fnord 2,279]

33 minutes ago, Stryker Ryker said:

Anything Pelosi says you should ignore. The fact that her & Biden are in prison already for the treason they’ve committed is outrageous. I swear if I ever get elected & they’re still alive I’m throwing them in jail, freezing their accounts, putting them on a no fly list, seizing their property under imminent domain & giving it back to the ppl, & will revoke their freedoms 

Thank you for being honest about being in favor of authoritarianism. It'd be a lot easier on everyone if the MAGAMOOKS would just skip to this step already and quit pretending, like @jonmx the wannabe terrorist. 

[Fnord 2,279]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re aware that the Nazi Party was elected, right? 
 

There is a reason that our Founding Fathers avoided a pure democracy and preferred the election of officials who would serve terms of office and decide issues (a republic): because the public isn’t informed enough to decide complex issues. They will inevitably choose the laziest, most simplistic, easiest choice to any difficult question: And that is why populism is so dangerous. 

See: the political rise of Donald Trump, fueled by stupid memes for stupid people that think they know just as much about complex issues as experts do. Our resident meme spammer @Maximum Overkill provides an excellent example of this fukkery, as does jon the terrorist, who is completely convinced he knows more about law than everyone sitting in the Manhattan court room with Trump.

This is why the evil libs like @BeachGuy23 consider them all to be little more than fungus intellectually, because people not in lockstep with right wing media are still trying to figure out how the greatest nation on earth could elect such a giant ignoramus POTUS.

[jonmx 2,429]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

Thank you for being honest about being in favor of authoritarianism. It'd be a lot easier on everyone if the MAGAMOOKS would just skip to this step already and quit pretending, like @jonmx the wannabe terrorist. 

You seriously can't be the fuking stupid and still breath.  You are on the side of arresting journalists, mass censorship, proxy wars, unlimited spying on people, shutdowns, freezing accounts, forced vaccinations, crimalizing self-defense, demonization of races.....such a dumbfuk bootlicking cultist.

[Fnord 2,279]

16 hours ago, jonmx said:

You seriously can't be the fuking stupid and still breath.  You are on the side of arresting journalists, mass censorship, proxy wars, unlimited spying on people, shutdowns, freezing accounts, forced vaccinations, crimalizing self-defense, demonization of races.....such a dumbfuk bootlicking cultist.

Just because you think it doesn't make it so. HTH you fuking authoritarian simp.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

23 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

You’ve already done this stupid thread, jon.

Populism needs to be guarded against. The “tyranny of the majority.” The founding fathers knew this, that’s the whole reason we have the bill of rights and so forth. Separation of powers as embodied in the US Constitution.

Guess you hate that? And yes, you probably do, since you’re just a Russian troll.

So when Democrats argue to get rid of the electoral college, you shout them down, right?  Guarding against the "tyranny of the majority", and all.  Or is that (D)ifferent?

[The Real timschochet 6,777]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So when Democrats argue to get rid of the electoral college, you shout them down, right?  Guarding against the "tyranny of the majority", and all.  Or is that (D)ifferent?

Not for me. Totally opposed to getting rid of the electoral college

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Not for me. Totally opposed to getting rid of the electoral college

We'll see how many of your party agree with you in November when Trump wins.  Willing to bet you'll be in the major minority, like you would have been in 2016.

[The Real timschochet 6,777]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

We'll see how many of your party agree with you in November when Trump wins.  Willing to bet you'll be in the major minority, like you would have been in 2016.

lol I’m in the minority all the time. 
 

But honestly it’s a pointless discussion. Even if every Democrat in this country wanted to get rid of the electoral college they still couldn’t do it. It would be even more difficult than an impeachment and removal, and THAT’S proven impossible. The Constitution is here to stay, there will be no further amendments in our lifetimes. 

[The Real timschochet 6,777]

I don’t even like state ballot initiatives. It’s not what the Founders had in mind. The public is not supposed to vote on issues. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

lol I’m in the minority all the time. 
 

But honestly it’s a pointless discussion. Even if every Democrat in this country wanted to get rid of the electoral college they still couldn’t do it. It would be even more difficult than an impeachment and removal, and THAT’S proven impossible. The Constitution is here to stay, there will be no further amendments in our lifetimes. 

Yeah, if you can't impeach and remove a president for being guilty of perjury, what can you get removed for, am I right?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

26 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So when Democrats argue to get rid of the electoral college, you shout them down, right?  Guarding against the "tyranny of the majority", and all.  Or is that (D)ifferent?

I don’t shout them down but I’m actually opposed to that idea. Didn’t like them changing the filibuster rules either.

Y’all make quite a lot of false assumptions about me: I think you Trumpers are focking crazy, but beyond that I mostly have pretty moderate beliefs (they just seem extreme leftist to you since you’re focking crazy )

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

21 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

lol I’m in the minority all the time. 
 

But honestly it’s a pointless discussion. Even if every Democrat in this country wanted to get rid of the electoral college they still couldn’t do it. It would be even more difficult than an impeachment and removal, and THAT’S proven impossible. The Constitution is here to stay, there will be no further amendments in our lifetimes. 

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

16 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t shout them down but I’m actually opposed to that idea. Didn’t like them changing the filibuster rules either.

Y’all make quite a lot of false assumptions about me: I think you Trumpers are focking crazy, but beyond that I mostly have pretty moderate beliefs (they just seem extreme leftist to you since you’re focking crazy )

Filibuster is stupid.  

No where else in our govt, does the minority have the ability to veto the majority. It came to be by accident and goes against what the founding fathers wanted. Before the Constitution, we were  governed by the Articles of Confederation - and that had a 9 out 13 requirement to pass legislation and one reason for the Constitution was because this supermajority requirement prevented almost all legislation from being passed. The Fathers wouldn't have made the VP the tie breaking vote in the Senate if they wanted a filibuster.  Think about it, if you tie, the VP decides, but instead of allowing for a tie, you can just filibuster to stop legislation, it's focking absurd.

[TBayXXXVII 2,547]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t shout them down but I’m actually opposed to that idea. Didn’t like them changing the filibuster rules either.

Y’all make quite a lot of false assumptions about me: I think you Trumpers are focking crazy, but beyond that I mostly have pretty moderate beliefs (they just seem extreme leftist to you since you’re focking crazy )

LOL, there's literal video evidence of everything Trump is accused of, showing Biden doing (and saying), the same thing, but it's (D)ifferent... and Republican's are the problem, right?  Got it.

[Fnord 2,279]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t shout them down but I’m actually opposed to that idea. Didn’t like them changing the filibuster rules either.

Y’all make quite a lot of false assumptions about me: I think you Trumpers are focking crazy, but beyond that I mostly have pretty moderate beliefs (they just seem extreme leftist to you since you’re focking crazy )

If you ever aren't sue what your opinions are on a subject, come to the GC and the MAGAMOOKS will be more than happy to tell you what you think. It's one of their most endearing traits.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Filibuster is stupid.  

No where else in our govt, does the minority have the ability to veto the majority. It came to be by accident and goes against what the founding fathers wanted. Before the Constitution, we were  governed by the Articles of Confederation - and that had a 9 out 13 requirement to pass legislation and one reason for the Constitution was because this supermajority requirement prevented almost all legislation from being passed. The Fathers wouldn't have made the VP the tie breaking vote in the Senate if they wanted a filibuster.  Think about it, if you tie, the VP decides, but instead of allowing for a tie, you can just filibuster to stop legislation, it's focking absurd.

I’m sure you are correct historically speaking, but I do think the filibuster was important as far as preventing a party with a narrow majority from ramming through whatever the hell they wanted. I think it was very short sighted to get rid of it 

[Mike Honcho 5,283]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’m sure you are correct historically speaking, but I do think the filibuster was important as far as preventing a party with a narrow majority from ramming through whatever the hell they wanted. I think it was very short sighted to get rid of it 

I vehemently disagree. 

I would much rather get rid of the filibuster-let the parties who win actually have to legislate and then in elections we vote on what they did or did not achieve. The current systems is stuck in the mud where nothing can be done and the goal of the parties (particularly the R's, think McConnell and his my job is to stop Obama from getting policies passed staement) is to not allow the other to do anything.  This is not what was envisioned when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the country is suffering for it. 

The filibuster is anti-democracy, pure and simple. 

That's my piece.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,445]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:55 AM, IGotWorms said:

You’ve already done this stupid thread, jon.

Populism needs to be guarded against. The “tyranny of the majority.” The founding fathers knew this, that’s the whole reason we have the bill of rights and so forth. Separation of powers as embodied in the US Constitution.

Guess you hate that? And yes, you probably do, since you’re just a Russian troll.

  And the media news organizations have become the fourth branch of government. Print/TV/Internet have been pushing the Fairness Doctrine for decades. And who do they support, the elites. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

35 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I vehemently disagree. 

I would much rather get rid of the filibuster-let the parties who win actually have to legislate and then in elections we vote on what they did or did not achieve. The current systems is stuck in the mud where nothing can be done and the goal of the parties (particularly the R's, think McConnell and his my job is to stop Obama from getting policies passed staement) is to not allow the other to do anything.  This is not what was envisioned when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the country is suffering for it. 

The filibuster is anti-democracy, pure and simple. 

That's my piece.

Fair enough