20 reasons to join the fight against the Far Left

[DCPatriot]

What I  want is my country back and will do whatever I can to get it back!

Amen, Brother!       

[DCPatriot]

You've always been in the "not some" part of my comment.... 

    ^-^

[Right_in_Virginia]

Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.

Even when "populism" is screaming for a return to the US Constitution and American values---as it was in 1980 and even more so in 2016?

Just what do you have against "making America great again"?
 

[musiclady]

Yeah!  Until they get cut off midstream by an overzealous mod or someone who doesn't like the subject of the discussion starts posting meaningless garbage that takes it completely off track.

Well, not going to argue with you about that!

Lots of senseless quibbling here  , but I still say lots of good discussion with respectful comments from both sides. 

[Frank Cannon]

Methadone is great at creating train wreck threads. First it was the "Dem Plant" thread and now this. Kudos.

[DCPatriot]

Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.

The point...which you should have seen...is that both Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump followed Barack Hussein Obama & Co..   

Two Democratic presidents that did great damage to our economy, military, and made the Middle East a more dangerous place.

It's a perfectly normal human condition for a People to gravitate for something to cheer about.   Ergo:  Ronald Reagan/Donald Trump.

I could be snarky and say, "I guess you had to be there!"...for Ronald Reagan.

But sadly, you were.   

[musiclady]

Methadone is great at creating train wreck threads. First it was the "Dem Plant" thread and now this. Kudos.

LOL!  That "Dem plant" thread was AWESOME!

(Especially because it was started by the only one on the forum.  And he's still here!!)

[aligncare]

Do you think the GDP would have reached 3%?     After we were told for 8 years, we should get down on our knees in thanks for 1.5%?

And passing 23,000 on the stock market?

Do you think we'd have a 2nd Amendment today?   Do you have any inkling what a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS would be capable of doing to the Constitution?   Immigration?   The corruption?

And you have the gall to suggest Donald Trump is no different?

Talk about Rocky Mountain High.....   

This might be a good time to mention that Hillary might still go down. Yes, someone could uncover the bodies, and wouldn’t that be justice.

And if Trump had lost and had Hillary won the election think of the constitutional crisis we averted when her trail of lies and corruption eventually became known. It’s GOOD Trump is president.

[RoosGirl]

This might be a good time to mention that Hillary might still go down. Yes, someone could uncover the bodies, and wouldn’t that be justice.

And if Trump had lost and had Hillary won the election think of the constitutional crisis we averted when her trail of lies and corruption eventually became known. It’s GOOD Trump is president.

LOL. This is a bleep awesome post.

[aligncare]

LOL. This is a bleep awesome post.

Yes it is, thanks. I guess I was doing a little daydreaming there. Fellow can dream, can’t he.

[EasyAce]

Even when "populism" is screaming for a return to the US Constitution and American values---as it was in 1980 and even more so in 2016?

Populism is by definition unprincipled, it is based on whatever the masses want. The
Constitution is designed to temper public anger and filter mass movements. It limits
government power in favor of the people. Trumpian populism seeks to use government
power to “help” the people.

I understand the inclination to make peace with Trumpian populism. But if you go this
route you have rejected your conservative principles in favor of public opinion. Constitution-
alism means we don’t just follow the popular trends. During the Obama years, Conservatives
did not make the argument that we should abandon conservatism because progressivism
had won.

Public opinion is not supreme. If it were, Donald Trump would not be taking office. Hillary
Clinton, who won the popular vote, would be.

---Jay W. Cobb,
2 December 2016.

Public opinion once upon a time supported slavery in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
once upon a time supported institutionalised racism in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
has often enough supported a good many things right reason knows to be wrong at minimum and grotesque-
ly dangerous at maximum. Is public opinion always wise? Would it have been wise to hand Hilarious Rodent
Clinton the White House because she won the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote? (Those who
think it wise to abolish the Electoral College, whatever they think of Donaldus Minimus, might want to
ponder that one, in the event a rightward candidate in the future wins the popular but not the electoral
vote.)

Just what do you have against "making America great again"?

America, which has never been not great, would cease to be America if she remains defined strictly
by fealty to whomever happens to hold the presidency, or to the cult of the presidency, a cult which is
much in need of dissipation regardless of who happens to hold the office. I'd like to think there was
a sound reason why the presidency comes in second in the array of the Constitution, even as I lament
that too many of my countrymanpersons continue to believe the president uber alles.

Make America "great" again? How about making America America again?

p.s. To those who insist on continuing with the Clinton bugaboo, please try to remember: Hilarious Rodent
Clinton lost. Get over it.

[TomSea]

Nope, populism is antithetical to a constitutional republic.

pop·u·lism
[ˈpäpyəˌlizəm]
NOUN

    support for the concerns of ordinary people:
    "it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder" · "the Finance Minister performed a commendable balancing act, combining populism with prudence"
        the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people:
        "art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"

Then, how is it defined?

[aligncare]

...and then the tires went screech....

[Sanguine]

The point...which you should have seen...is that both Ronald Reagan followed Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump followed Barack Hussein Obama & Co..   

Two Democratic presidents that did great damage to our economy, military, and made the Middle East a more dangerous place.

It's a perfectly normal human condition for a People to gravitate for something to cheer about.   Ergo:  Ronald Reagan/Donald Trump.

I could be snarky and say, "I guess you had to be there!"...for Ronald Reagan.

But sadly, you were.   

Looks like, sadly, you missed my point.   

[Sanguine]

Then, how is it defined?

See the post just above yours.

[TomSea]

"support for the concerns of ordinary people:"

Christians feel they are being given a raw deal in everything, LGBT/Big Government agenda pushed, Christians mocked on TV, someone feels that is wrong; and all of a sudden, someone appeals to them and all of a sudden, this is populism that is antithetical?   

[TomSea]

See the post just above yours.

No, I think I'll take mine.

I don't need eggheads at the National Review making the definition,  Jay W. Cobb? Might as well be Lee J. Cobb.

[musiclady]

Populism is by definition unprincipled, it is based on whatever the masses want. The
Constitution is designed to temper public anger and filter mass movements. It limits
government power in favor of the people. Trumpian populism seeks to use government
power to “help” the people.

I understand the inclination to make peace with Trumpian populism. But if you go this
route you have rejected your conservative principles in favor of public opinion. Constitution-
alism means we don’t just follow the popular trends. During the Obama years, Conservatives
did not make the argument that we should abandon conservatism because progressivism
had won.

Public opinion is not supreme. If it were, Donald Trump would not be taking office. Hillary
Clinton, who won the popular vote, would be.

---Jay W. Cobb,
2 December 2016.

Public opinion once upon a time supported slavery in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
once upon a time supported institutionalised racism in many places. Was public opinion wise? Public opinion
has often enough supported a good many things right reason knows to be wrong at minimum and grotesque-
ly dangerous at maximum. Is public opinion always wise? Would it have been wise to hand Hilarious Rodent
Clinton the White House because she won the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote? (Those who
think it wise to abolish the Electoral College, whatever they think of Donaldus Minimus, might want to
ponder that one, in the event a rightward candidate in the future wins the popular but not the electoral
vote.)
America, which has never been not great, would cease to be America if she remains defined strictly
by fealty to whomever happens to hold the presidency, or to the cult of the presidency, a cult which is
much in need of dissipation regardless of who happens to hold the office. I'd like to think there was
a sound reason why the presidency comes in second in the array of the Constitution, even as I lament
that too many of my countrymanpersons continue to believe the president uber alles.

Make America "great" again? How about making America America again?

p.s. To those who insist on continuing with the Clinton bugaboo, please try to remember: Hilarious Rodent
Clinton lost. Get over it.

GREAT post, @EasyAce !

Thanks!

[TomSea]

Be comfortable if one wants to call the Tea Party a populist movement which I can see and now, say that is antithetical as well.

United States
See also: Radical right (United States)

Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape "conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s.[101] Historical right-wing populist figures in the United States have included Thomas E. Watson, Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and Pat Buchanan.[102]

Yes, thanks @EasyAce  Great post.
Now, we know the Tea Party is disdained by some here.

The Tea Party movement has been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010). They add, "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right – manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement."[103] In 2010, David Barstow wrote in The New York Times that "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent".[104] Some political figures closely associated with the Tea Party, such as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, have been described as appealing to right-wing populism.[105][106][107]

Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, noted for its anti-globalist, anti-elitist, and anti-illegal immigration rhetoric, was characterized as that of a right-wing populist.[108][109]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism

Oooooooooops..

[RoosGirl]

National Review is crap, but Wikipedia is a bastion of conservative thought and idea.

[TomSea]

Yes, National Review has had all of these successful Presidential candidates they have endorsed lately. 

[EasyAce]

GREAT post, @EasyAce !

Thanks!

@musiclady
You're welcome!

All I know otherwise is that if I built a music library based on popular opinion, I wouldn't have a lick
of my two favourite musics (blues and jazz) in it. (My music library is dominated equally by both.)
Not to mention not a lot of soul music and maybe not a lot of world/ethnic music. (I'm a freak for
Indian, Native American, and some African music, too.)

[TomSea]

Okay, Encyclopedia Britannica:

Tea Party movement

Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls.

Continued: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tea-Party-movement

Now where are your "cute" little shoot from the hip responses to that? I'll bet I can find dozens of entries calling the Tea Party populist but now, some want some sort of limited definition and that makes it bad.  Really? 

[RoosGirl]

Yes, National Review has had all of these successful Presidential candidates they have endorsed lately.

I know, I hate it when the conservative doesn't win.

[TomSea]

Really ... so populism can't be conservative?   Fascinating. 


         

Yep, great post.

@Right_in_Virginia

And now, let's see if detractors salvage the tea party too at this "Conservative Hub".

Tea Party is going to be thought of pretty much as Populist so some author nobody has heard of at the Buckley group has the definition we are suppose to buy. No thanks.

 new gadsen8888