An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
Yes but this continues to be true. The top level poster implied that at some point is was true, but it is no longer true. It’s never been reasonably possibly in the us and nothing has changed recently to make it meaningfully less possible.
Populism is literally focusing on the masses. Now elitists use it as a pejorative to refer to fascists when fascists are also elitist with faux populist rhetoric.
No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals. Has been so since always. Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a “good political administration”.
Quite clearly, yes. Bernie may rely on populism more than a hardline socialist, but as a relative metric against his rivals, he’s not even close to a populist.
Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the ‘common voter.’ It is neither good nor bad.
Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.
The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.
Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort ‘true populists’ who are actually trying to help their supporter base from ‘faux-populists’ fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.
political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.
The style of politics that claims to speak for ordinary people and often stirs up distrust has risen up on both sides of the political spectrum throughout U.S. history.
Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say ‘populism’.
When Dems had the supermajority during the first part of Obama’s term, Roe could have easily been codified into law. They slept on this at the time, saying there were “other priorities.”
So, while this doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to become the law of the land, with how incredibly dysfunctional Congress has become, it may be the case that Article V conventions are the only way to change the laws to suit the needs of the public over the desires of the elites.
How old are you? That’s was a very different demographic of democratic senators you were looking at back then.
In 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition, also known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, was a caucus of moderate members from the Democratic Party in the United States. The Blue Dogs were characterized by their moderate to conservative views within the Democratic Party[1]. During that time, the Blue Dogs played a significant role in shaping policy and negotiations within the Democratic Party.
The Blue Dog Coalition peaked at 54 members in 2009 when Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives[3]. These members were influential in various policy discussions and were known for their moderate stance on many issues.
Some notable Blue Dog Democratic senators during that period included individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who expressed optimism about reaching agreements on important issues like healthcare reform with a majority of the more than 50 Blue Dogs[5]. The Blue Dogs were recognized for their willingness to work across party lines and find bipartisan solutions to key legislative matters.
Hello friend. I’m old enough to recognize that the corporatist blue dog Dems are the same corporatists running the DNC now. The very same conservative neoliberals who refuse to deliver on any meaningful social reform that our people desperately need, because their donors don’t want them to. But, I’m young enough to still believe we can find a way to change that rigged system to instead represent us.
Respectfully disagree. As a habitual grass-toucher, I find the vast majority of people I discuss progressive policies with are massively in favor of all of them. Paid family leave, increased minimum wage, access to best quality healthcare outside of employers, universal federal background checks for firearms purchases…these are all massively popular. And it’s not just my anecdotal experiences here, polling data shows these all to be extremely popular, even on both sides of the liberal and conservative ”divide”. We are well within our rights to expect the government to do things for us, not just for the corporations.
It’s mostly mainstream media outlets such as msnbc, fox, cnn, etc that perpetuate this myth of how the status quo is so wonderful and we could never do better. According to them, the politicians in Washington are political geniuses who should be revered. And wouldn’t you know it - these same multinational companies rake in profits to the tune of billions due to the system favoring them.
Maybe as well, some boomers who never gave a shit about politics and were able to raise a family on a single income back in the day would think this. Most normal people know this is complete bs and that we’re being screwed, including the vast majority of those under 40 who tend to not consume the traditional news media and get it from varied other sources. You just don’t hear about how we’re all being robbed of our wealth and our dignity on tv.
Yes that’s the crux of it isn’t it. Progressive ideas are popular but progressive candidates don’t win. I think it’s a Nixon opening China situation, voters want universal healthcare but they want a person like Ted Cruz to be the one to give it to them.
their other priorities were arguing back and forth for months watering down a republican-written healthcare reform bill for the supposed benefit of republicans who still didn’t vote for it.
How? No way 75% of the states would agree.
By electing sane politicians and not a bunch of weak populists who bend for the loudest rightwingnuts…
Sir this is a Wendy’s
Ok. Start with Mississippi.
Yes but this continues to be true. The top level poster implied that at some point is was true, but it is no longer true. It’s never been reasonably possibly in the us and nothing has changed recently to make it meaningfully less possible.
Yeah, that isn’t going to work, because either
or
Faux populists, populists are actually cool
No, they’re not. Populism as a whole is a horrible political strategy which benefits only a few members of the political class.
Populism is literally focusing on the masses. Now elitists use it as a pejorative to refer to fascists when fascists are also elitist with faux populist rhetoric.
No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals. Has been so since always. Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a “good political administration”.
I mean I’ve heard people accuse Bernie of being a populist but I don’t think he’s focused on short term goals. Are they using the term wrong?
Quite clearly, yes. Bernie may rely on populism more than a hardline socialist, but as a relative metric against his rivals, he’s not even close to a populist.
That’s populism.
Populists just tell you what you want to hear so they get power. There’s no intention to follow through.
Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the ‘common voter.’ It is neither good nor bad.
Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.
The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.
Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort ‘true populists’ who are actually trying to help their supporter base from ‘faux-populists’ fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.
Nah this is populism
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fyulaci7gsux51.png%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D57005d3769a1055e32e81efdd4ada059caa06933
Encyclopedia britannica:
Wikipedia asserts a similar definition
History.com again corroborates this:
Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say ‘populism’.
That seems to be the type of populists we have in the current decade.
The brilliant minds behind ancient aliens have spoken people! Throw in the towel!
This is amusing, thank you for sharing.
Just gotta have another civil war of course. EZ.
And that’s one of the major problems with America.
When Dems had the supermajority during the first part of Obama’s term, Roe could have easily been codified into law. They slept on this at the time, saying there were “other priorities.”
So, while this doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to become the law of the land, with how incredibly dysfunctional Congress has become, it may be the case that Article V conventions are the only way to change the laws to suit the needs of the public over the desires of the elites.
How old are you? That’s was a very different demographic of democratic senators you were looking at back then.
In 2009, the Blue Dog Coalition, also known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, was a caucus of moderate members from the Democratic Party in the United States. The Blue Dogs were characterized by their moderate to conservative views within the Democratic Party[1]. During that time, the Blue Dogs played a significant role in shaping policy and negotiations within the Democratic Party.
The Blue Dog Coalition peaked at 54 members in 2009 when Democrats held a large majority in the House of Representatives[3]. These members were influential in various policy discussions and were known for their moderate stance on many issues.
Some notable Blue Dog Democratic senators during that period included individuals like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who expressed optimism about reaching agreements on important issues like healthcare reform with a majority of the more than 50 Blue Dogs[5]. The Blue Dogs were recognized for their willingness to work across party lines and find bipartisan solutions to key legislative matters.
Citations: [1] Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition [2] The Blue Dogs bark - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/the-blue-dogs-bark-018434 [3] What the Decline of Blue Dog Democrats Tells Us About … https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2017/12/what-the-decline-of-blue-dog-democrats-tells-us-about-american-politics/548813/ [4] List of members of the Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Blue_Dog_Coalition [5] Conservative Democrats Expect a Health Deal - The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/us/politics/02bluedogs.html
Hello friend. I’m old enough to recognize that the corporatist blue dog Dems are the same corporatists running the DNC now. The very same conservative neoliberals who refuse to deliver on any meaningful social reform that our people desperately need, because their donors don’t want them to. But, I’m young enough to still believe we can find a way to change that rigged system to instead represent us.
You need to realize that outside of your internet bubble and in the real world people just want boring plain old boring liberalism & conservatism
Respectfully disagree. As a habitual grass-toucher, I find the vast majority of people I discuss progressive policies with are massively in favor of all of them. Paid family leave, increased minimum wage, access to best quality healthcare outside of employers, universal federal background checks for firearms purchases…these are all massively popular. And it’s not just my anecdotal experiences here, polling data shows these all to be extremely popular, even on both sides of the liberal and conservative ”divide”. We are well within our rights to expect the government to do things for us, not just for the corporations.
It’s mostly mainstream media outlets such as msnbc, fox, cnn, etc that perpetuate this myth of how the status quo is so wonderful and we could never do better. According to them, the politicians in Washington are political geniuses who should be revered. And wouldn’t you know it - these same multinational companies rake in profits to the tune of billions due to the system favoring them.
Maybe as well, some boomers who never gave a shit about politics and were able to raise a family on a single income back in the day would think this. Most normal people know this is complete bs and that we’re being screwed, including the vast majority of those under 40 who tend to not consume the traditional news media and get it from varied other sources. You just don’t hear about how we’re all being robbed of our wealth and our dignity on tv.
Yes that’s the crux of it isn’t it. Progressive ideas are popular but progressive candidates don’t win. I think it’s a Nixon opening China situation, voters want universal healthcare but they want a person like Ted Cruz to be the one to give it to them.
their other priorities were arguing back and forth for months watering down a republican-written healthcare reform bill for the supposed benefit of republicans who still didn’t vote for it.
precisely
Ah! The mythical supermajority that never really was.
It quite literally was that until Kennedy died.
With Franken not sworn in for months, Byrd hospitalized and Kennedy’s death they never had 60 sitting senators.