Populism

[Gloominary]

What does populism mean to you?

You’ve probably heard the phrase: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Tax the poor and small business to give to big business.
That’s corporatism, which’s a form of elitism, which’s the opposite of what populism means to me.
I’m going to reverse the phrase and add a few things.
To me, populism means socialism, and libertarianism for the poorest 99%, capitalism, and authoritarianism for the richest 1%.

That is, populism means socialism/positive rights (government gives to), and libertarianism/negative rights (government doesn’t take from) for the poorest 99%, capitalism/negative duties (government doesn’t give to), and authoritarianism/positive duties (government takes from) for the richest 1%.
Populism is when government gives the people something they want, like affordable housing, free, but voluntary healthcare and higher education at the elite’s expense, but asks little or nothing of the people in return, it minimally taxes the people or not at all, it minimally regulates the people’s cultural, personal and social lives or not at all.

A lot of the political and socioeconomic discussion here and everywhere revolves around authoritarianism versus libertarianism, big government vs small gov, but I don’t think that’s the most important issue.
While I prefer a middle-small sized government, I think the more important issue is how does it intervene when it does and on whose behalf?
I want to increase both spending on, and liberty for the 99%, while reducing both spending on, and liberty for the 1%, or in other words, I want to have my cake and eat it, ideally, of course this’s seldom how it works in practice, but it’s what we should aim for.

Instead of racial and sexual identity politics, how bout class identity politics, where the culture of the elite is held under a microscope and scrutinized?
Is the ultimate privilege not rich privilege?
Those born with silver spoons in their mouths?
Instead of focusing on racial and sexual diversity, how bout focusing on socioeconomic diversity?
You have to hire x amount of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or you’re not diverse enough.
Should the rich not receive higher sentences for committing the same crimes, especially property and white collar crimes, since they don’t need the money?
Should they not receive higher minimum sentences?
See how they’ve structured things to keep the 99% fighting amongst ourselves?

That’s how they’ve rigged it, more corporate welfare than social welfare, higher taxes for the 99% in practice, keep the middleclass fighting with the working class, keep men and women, nations and races fighting, or afraid of the climate or a germ, while the upperclass is seldom mentioned.
A lot of our environmental and health issues would disappear if we solved the class issue, we’d have more time, energy and money to eat better and take better care of our health, boosting immunity, we wouldn’t have to produce, consume and waste as much, reducing our environmental impact.

And when do the poor finally get ‘helped’?
Only after the elite have taken their business, career and job from them, their lives and livelihoods, but they have to get tracked, traced and tested, wear a mask and take nanotech, RNA altering aluminum, bleach, mercury and roundup vaccines first, which’s one way of lowering our collective ‘carbon footprint’.

[Gloominary]

A lot of sociopolitical discussion revolves around whether you want liberty, centrism or authority, big government, medium or small.
That’s an important discussion, a quantitative one as opposed to qualitative.
I see populism as a kind of quantitative centrism.
Another important discussion is what kind of centrism or authority, medium or big government do you want?
Fiscally, do you want socialism, capitalism, corporatism or some combination thereof, socially, do you want progressivism, libertarianism, conservatism or some combination thereof?

Another way of defining populism is, fiscally center-left, a socialist, and socially center-right, a conservative, which’s what government ought to be, aligned with what polls indicate most people want, and elitism is the opposite, fiscally center-right, a corporatist, and socially center-left, a progressive, which’s what government is, aligned with what most of the elite want.
Basically a socialist wants some downward redistribution of wealth and a corporatist some upward redistribution, a social conservative wants to preserve or restore the people and their values, and a social progressive wants to transform them.

So I have two ways of defining populism, the 1st is socialism and libertarianism for the people, capitalism and authoritarianism for the elite, and the 2nd is fiscal socialism, social conservatism.
I think both definitions have about equal value for me.

[Gloominary]

History is largely a struggle, between man and his environment, man and man (individual and individual, demographic and demographic), and man and himself.
Another sort of struggle is ideological.
One ideological struggle is quantitative, between libertarians and authoritarians.
Another ideological struggle is qualitative, between the two sorts of populism and elitism I mentioned.

Authoritarianism can take many forms.
In medieval and early modern Europe, politically it took an absolute monarchy form, socioeconomically a feudalist/mercantilist one and spiritually a catholic one.
In the early 19th century, Bonapartism arose.
Bonaparte crushed the infant republic of France similar to how Caesar crushed the late republic of Rome.
In the early 20th century, communism, fascism and its offshoots, most notably Nazism arose.
Communism politically took an absolute dictatorship form, economically a state capitalist one, socially a progressive (but not nearly as socially progressive as we are today) one and spiritually an aspiritual or atheistic one.
Fascism politically took an absolute dictatorship form, economically a corporatist one, socially a conservative one and spiritually a theistic one, sometimes Christian, sometimes pagan, pantheist or deist.
Nazism was similar to fascism but with more emphasis on race, particularly the Nordic rather than the Alpine, Mediterranean or nonwhite races.

With the rise of Covid-1984, Antifa and BLM, I believe we’re seeing a resurgence of communism, but with less emphasis on economics and more on social progressivism, scientism, technocracy, environmentalism, Malthusianism and transhumanism.
I believe libertarians and populists will ultimately do battle with the neocommunists.
The battle will happen both internationally and intranationally.

I can’t predict the outcome, either one could win, or we could all lose, witness the collapse of much or all of civilization into a new dark age.
Other outcomes are possible, they could reach a compromise, or the world could be divided into two or more blocs the way were during the cold war, or nations could balkanize, with many heavily urban areas embracing communism while many intermediate and rural areas embrace libertarianism and populism.
Or we could get a mixed outcome with elements of all the aforementioned.

One thing is certain however, and that is this struggle is already occurring, we’re seeing it play out, not just in the US, but all over the world, in the US, and Brazil, where nationalists like DT and Bolsonaro compete with globalists, but also in the UK over Brexit, Italy over Matteo Salvini and so on.
The struggle will likely get more violent as the 20s unfold.

[Gloominary]

Over time, we’ve moved further to the left in how we define left and right.
In the early 19th century, the far left was classical liberalism and the far right feudalism, mercantilism or theocracy.
In the early 20th century, the far left was communism or technocracy, the center classical liberalism and the far right fascism or Nazism.
In the early 21st century, the far left is still communism or technocracy, but the far right is classical liberalism.
Does this mean the future is communism, technocracy or will the pendulum swing back the other way?

It’s also interesting to see how the left and right are diverging more as of late, especially culturally and socially, but also economically.
At the turn of 21st century, in the anglosphere the center-left meant fiscally social democrat and socially relatively libertarian, the center-right meant fiscally relatively libertarian and socially conservative.
The center-left more buy local think global, if you will, the center-right more buy global think local.
Nowadays the left is still fiscally social democrat but socially more progressive authoritarian than libertarian and fully globalist, while the right is both fiscally and socially more libertarian and fully nationalist, more civic nationalist in the west and ethno-nationalist in eastern Europe.

[Gloominary]

Democracy eventually succumbed to autocracy in antiquity.
So far the anglosphere, with its emphasis on both classical and postclassical liberal democracy has been able to defeat authoritarianism, in the form of Bonapartism, communism, fascism and Nazism.
Will part or all of the anglosphere or part or all of the whole world succumb to authoritarianism?
And if so, what form will this authoritarianism take?
Will it take a communist form, but with more emphasis on identity politics, technocracy or will it take another form, or no form at all, something less ideological and more pragmatic?
Will the authoritarianism be monolithic or polylithic?

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I thought populism was the idea that the majority are victims of the minority.
The idea that government is often/usually bad.
The idea that the masses are entirely innocent.
In other words, crap.

[Gloominary]

@Dan~

I thought populism was the idea that the majority are victims of the minority.
The idea that government is often/usually bad.
The idea that the masses are entirely innocent.
In other words, crap.

[Urwrongx1000]

I’ll just answer first and read second, so as not to taint my answer.

@Gloominary

What does populism mean to you?

1. Mob-rule, Democracy, Rule by Majority, 51% = true, 49% = false
2. Emotionalism, Anti-Reason, Illogical, Pro-Female, Anti-Male
3. Popularity contest, those who are more popular are more socially valuable
4. Anti-Scientific, “Science” is conducted by popular results, results which are not popular are no longer “Scientific”

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

What does populism mean to you?

You’ve probably heard the phrase: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Tax the poor and small business to give to big business.
That’s corporatism, which’s a form of elitism, which’s the opposite of what populism means to me.
I’m going to reverse the phrase and add a few things.
To me, populism means socialism, and libertarianism for the poorest 99%, capitalism, and authoritarianism for the richest 1%.

That is, populism means socialism/positive rights (government gives to), and libertarianism/negative rights (government doesn’t take from) for the poorest 99%, capitalism/negative duties (government doesn’t give to), and authoritarianism/positive duties (government takes from) for the richest 1%.
Populism is when government gives the people something they want, like affordable housing, free, but voluntary healthcare and higher education at the elite’s expense, but asks little or nothing of the people in return, it minimally taxes the people or not at all, it minimally regulates the people’s cultural, personal and social lives or not at all.

I disagree with this: “asks little or nothing of the people in return”

What they ask for, demand in fact, is very simple: Your Vote. You are “given” Welfare and Benefits, and what they ask/demand, is you vote Democrat/Socialist/Communist party. If you don’t, then they will sabotage, deny benefits, dox, gaslight, and a number of other threats/attacks to force the matter. Welfare is a means of “buying-back” a vote. That’s its very purpose. Populaism buys more Popular vote. Democrats have dominated the US political power through this means. They vote themselves into power. They tax the enemy (Republicans), then put that money into more Welfare, which buys more Democratic votes. They keep doing this over and over, which is why the matter of UBI is coming, as even more leverage to buy votes. It’s a factor of using their political power and leverage, to buy more political power and leverage.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

A lot of the political and socioeconomic discussion here and everywhere revolves around authoritarianism versus libertarianism, big government vs small gov, but I don’t think that’s the most important issue.
While I prefer a middle-small sized government, I think the more important issue is how does it intervene when it does and on whose behalf?
I want to increase both spending on, and liberty for the 99%, while reducing both spending on, and liberty for the 1%, or in other words, I want to have my cake and eat it, ideally, of course this’s seldom how it works in practice, but it’s what we should aim for.

Instead of racial and sexual identity politics, how bout class identity politics, where the culture of the elite is held under a microscope and scrutinized?
Is the ultimate privilege not rich privilege?
Those born with silver spoons in their mouths?
Instead of focusing on racial and sexual diversity, how bout focusing on socioeconomic diversity?
You have to hire x amount of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or you’re not diverse enough.
Should the rich not receive higher sentences for committing the same crimes, especially property and white collar crimes, since they don’t need the money?
Should they not receive higher minimum sentences?
See how they’ve structured things to keep the 99% fighting amongst ourselves?

Sure there are some valid concerns and insights about what “should be” the case, but is not, and why is it not? Marxism is taught openly now throughout the US public education system, leading directly to socialism and communism. The ‘elite’ class, the ultra-rich, become untouchable. Because they own the Media. The Media works in concert with the far-left-liberal Professor, College, and mainstream education propaganda. They aren’t teaching children in schools to “overturn the top 1%”. They’re teaching them to side with specific political groups and powers, specifically, socialists and socialism. And this not a form of “socialism” that would ask such questions, or truly investigate the “more critical” social matters. Not that kind of Socialism.

Democratic-Far-Left-Socialism, NOT Republican-Far-Right-Socialism. You’re missing the link here.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

That’s how they’ve rigged it, more corporate welfare than social welfare, higher taxes for the 99% in practice, keep the middleclass fighting with the working class, keep men and women, nations and races fighting, or afraid of the climate or a germ, while the upperclass is seldom mentioned.
A lot of our environmental and health issues would disappear if we solved the class issue, we’d have more time, energy and money to eat better and take better care of our health, boosting immunity, we wouldn’t have to produce, consume and waste as much, reducing our environmental impact.

And when do the poor finally get ‘helped’?
Only after the elite have taken their business, career and job from them, their lives and livelihoods, but they have to get tracked, traced and tested, wear a mask and take nanotech, RNA altering aluminum, bleach, mercury and roundup vaccines first, which’s one way of lowering our collective ‘carbon footprint’.

Yeah, well, that’s just not going to happen. The ‘elite’ have the politicians, deep state, military, MSM, US education system, etc etc in their pockets. If you really think people are going to turn-around, question and revolt, against the powers-that-be, you’re mistaken. All directions point the opposite direction. The elites are richer, stronger, more powerful than they ever have been in world history.

They have adapted to Modern-Post-Modernity. The masses have not. The masses are catching-up, which is why Free Speech is under attack and in dire threat in the US right now.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

A lot of sociopolitical discussion revolves around whether you want liberty, centrism or authority, big government, medium or small.
That’s an important discussion, a quantitative one as opposed to qualitative.
I see populism as a kind of quantitative centrism.
Another important discussion is what kind of centrism or authority, medium or big government do you want?
Fiscally, do you want socialism, capitalism, corporatism or some combination thereof, socially, do you want progressivism, libertarianism, conservatism or some combination thereof?

Another way of defining populism is, fiscally center-left, a socialist, and socially center-right, a conservative, which’s what government ought to be, aligned with what polls indicate most people want, and elitism is the opposite, fiscally center-right, a corporatist, and socially center-left, a progressive, which’s what government is, aligned with what most of the elite want.
Basically a socialist wants some downward redistribution of wealth and a corporatist some upward redistribution, a social conservative wants to preserve or restore the people and their values, and a social progressive wants to transform them.

So I have two ways of defining populism, the 1st is socialism and libertarianism for the people, capitalism and authoritarianism for the elite, and the 2nd is fiscal socialism, social conservatism.
I think both definitions have about equal value for me.

According to my preference, I want Capitalism-Libertarianism-Conservatism in that order. Anti-Marxism, Anti-Socialism, Anti-Populism.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

History is largely a struggle, between man and his environment, man and man (individual and individual, demographic and demographic), and man and himself.
Another sort of struggle is ideological.
One ideological struggle is quantitative, between libertarians and authoritarians.
Another ideological struggle is qualitative, between the two sorts of populism and elitism I mentioned.

Authoritarianism can take many forms.
In medieval and early modern Europe, politically it took an absolute monarchy form, socioeconomically a feudalist/mercantilist one and spiritually a catholic one.
In the early 19th century, Bonapartism arose.
Bonaparte crushed the infant republic of France similar to how Caesar crushed the late republic of Rome.
In the early 20th century, communism, fascism and its offshoots, most notably Nazism arose.
Communism politically took an absolute dictatorship form, economically a state capitalist one, socially a progressive (but not nearly as socially progressive as we are today) one and spiritually an aspiritual or atheistic one.
Fascism politically took an absolute dictatorship form, economically a corporatist one, socially a conservative one and spiritually a theistic one, sometimes Christian, sometimes pagan, pantheist or deist.
Nazism was similar to fascism but with more emphasis on race, particularly the Nordic rather than the Alpine, Mediterranean or nonwhite races.

With the rise of Covid-1984, Antifa and BLM, I believe we’re seeing a resurgence of communism, but with less emphasis on economics and more on social progressivism, scientism, technocracy, environmentalism, Malthusianism and transhumanism.
I believe libertarians and populists will ultimately do battle with the neocommunists.
The battle will happen both internationally and intranationally.

I can’t predict the outcome, either one could win, or we could all lose, witness the collapse of much or all of civilization into a new dark age.
Other outcomes are possible, they could reach a compromise, or the world could be divided into two or more blocs the way were during the cold war, or nations could balkanize, with many heavily urban areas embracing communism while many intermediate and rural areas embrace libertarianism and populism.
Or we could get a mixed outcome with elements of all the aforementioned.

One thing is certain however, and that is this struggle is already occurring, we’re seeing it play out, not just in the US, but all over the world, in the US, and Brazil, where nationalists like DT and Bolsonaro compete with globalists, but also in the UK over Brexit, Italy over Matteo Salvini and so on.
The struggle will likely get more violent as the 20s unfold.

For me, the choice is simple. Do you want Free Speech or not? If you value philosophy, then your answer is yes. The more the extremities divide, and they are, the more everybody, every single person, will be forced to a decision. Nobody will be immune, and must pick a side. I will pick Free Speech and Philosophy, obviously. I believe this pits me against the growing Communist bloc.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

Over time, we’ve moved further to the left in how we define left and right.
In the early 19th century, the far left was classical liberalism and the far right feudalism, mercantilism or theocracy.
In the early 20th century, the far left was communism or technocracy, the center classical liberalism and the far right fascism or Nazism.
In the early 21st century, the far left is still communism or technocracy, but the far right is classical liberalism.
Does this mean the future is communism, technocracy or will the pendulum swing back the other way?

It’s also interesting to see how the left and right are diverging more as of late, especially culturally and socially, but also economically.
At the turn of 21st century, in the anglosphere the center-left meant fiscally social democrat and socially relatively libertarian, the center-right meant fiscally relatively libertarian and socially conservative.
The center-left more buy local think global, if you will, the center-right more buy global think local.
Nowadays the left is still fiscally social democrat but socially more progressive authoritarian than libertarian and fully globalist, while the right is both fiscally and socially more libertarian and fully nationalist, more civic nationalist in the west and ethno-nationalist in eastern Europe.

I think with this election farce, the massive Voter Fraud, the attack and compromise of Free Speech by the Press/MSM, the pendulum has already reached its apex far-far-left, and must begin swinging back right.

However, it will not be pretty, and I predict lots of violence and unrest to come, unfortunately for everybody.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Gloominary

Democracy eventually succumbed to autocracy in antiquity.
So far the anglosphere, with its emphasis on both classical and postclassical liberal democracy has been able to defeat authoritarianism, in the form of Bonapartism, communism, fascism and Nazism.
Will part or all of the anglosphere or part or all of the whole world succumb to authoritarianism?
And if so, what form will this authoritarianism take?
Will it take a communist form, but with more emphasis on identity politics, technocracy or will it take another form, or no form at all, something less ideological and more pragmatic?
Will the authoritarianism be monolithic or polylithic?

It’s already begun. It looks like Trump. He’s the first, but won’t be last of what follows. The fears of the far-liberal-left, Hitler and Nazi-Germany, is a manifestation of their desires. They are creating what they claim to hate and fear the most. Consider it like this, these types are fatherless, have weak fathers, anti-Masculinity “toxic masculinity”, a nation and societies of Bastards. They envy what they never had, cannot have, and never will have, a strong father-type. A Patriarchy.

Authoritarianism is a reflection of a strong, proud Father (Patriarchy).

Women/Females are not Authorities. Nobody really respects women in power of Authority; they are unfit by nature to lead Men in times of war, strife, scarcity, and chaos.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

See how they’ve structured things to keep the 99% fighting amongst ourselves?

‘They’ don’t need to start conflict between lower classes,
to distract them from their true enemy.
Sometimes the enemy lays within.

[Urwrongx1000]

All they had to do to destabilize the US was infect it with an artificial disease and replay George Floyd on the MSM a few times.

That’s all it took, and takes, to pit the the middle and lower classes against each other (based on Race, which is a Ruse/Lie).

[Urwrongx1000]

@Dan~

‘They’ don’t need to start conflict between lower classes,
to distract them from their true enemy.
Sometimes the enemy lays within.

And sometimes the enemy lays without.

China and the Communist Party.

[Gloominary]

@Urwrongx1000

I’ll just answer first and read second, so as not to taint my answer.

@Gloominary

What does populism mean to you?

1. Mob-rule, Democracy, Rule by Majority, 51% = true, 49% = false
2. Emotionalism, Anti-Reason, Illogical, Pro-Female, Anti-Male
3. Popularity contest, those who are more popular are more socially valuable
4. Anti-Scientific, “Science” is conducted by popular results, results which are not popular are no longer “Scientific”

Right, for you, populism is synonymous with majoritarianism and femininity.
For me, populism is what’s best for the people, and the idea that by and large, the people know what’s best for themselves.
By the people, I mean the 99% as opposed to the 1%, the elite, altho you could make it the 51%, the majority, as opposed to the 49%, the minority, I choose to make it more inclusive, because we won’t be able to get much, if anything done so long as the 51% are fighting with the 49%.
Today’s 51% could easily become tomorrow’s 49%.
The 1%-0.1% wants to keep us divided, it’s how they win.
Perhaps the 1% shouldn’t be allowed to run for political office.

Populism is is not autocracy or oligarchy, whether it’s ergatocratic, technocratic, plutocratic or theocratic, and it’s not a matriarchy or patriarchy.
We can certainly take into consideration what the scientific community, or any community says, but the people should have the final say.
For me, populism is a synthesis of individual liberty and democracy, it’s centrism rather than extreme libertarianism/republicanism or extreme authoritarianism/democracy (but not just any kind of centrism).
The people express their will both individually with their dollar and democratically with their vote.
Altho I prefer nationalism, it’s not necessarily opposed to globalism, so long as it’s a reciprocal, nonparasitic globalism, like where we import people we don’t need, or who don’t share our core values, where we outsource our good jobs while they hoard theirs, where they buy our housing and land while they hoard theirs, or where undemocratic, unpopulist international organizations try to take us over.

For me, populism is when the 99% exercise quite a bit of sociopolitical authority over the 1%, like by taxing them, regulating big business, surveilling and scrutinizing them and their culture, uncovering their corruption and restricting some of their sociopolitical freedoms, it’s not the 1% exercising authority over the 99%, it’s not everyone exercising authority over everyone, or women and minorities exercising authority over men and the majority, or vice versa.
While some give and take may be permissible, for far too long the 1% have maliciously exercised authority over the 99%.
I think a society where the people are dominant and well off, but there’s still plenty of freedom to move up and down the socioeconomic ladder, would be the best of all possible worlds, the most rational, & intuitive, the most just.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to destroy the 1%, I don’t want to siphon so much of their wealth and liberty they stop being the 1%.
We’d just end up with a new 1%, and after they’re gone, another, which would lead to mass division, chaos and strife.
A minimal populism would be going after the 1% just enough to provide what the 99% consider to be a decent standard of living.
A more maximal populism would be going after the 1% as much as possible, so long as the vast majority of them are willing and able to keep being the 1%, and the economy doesn’t start shrinking.
I think such a state of affairs would foster the right balance between equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.

And there’s another, simpler kind of populism.
It’s also a kind of centrism.
We’ve talked about it before, basically fiscally center-left (social democrat), and culturally, socially center-right (social conservative).
Polls show the people tend to favor this arrangement, but unfortunately we have the opposite arrangement, fiscally center-right (corporate democrat) and culturally, socially center-left (social progressive).
In any case, either one of these populisms would be better than what we have today.

[Gloominary]

@Urwrongx1000

@Gloominary

What does populism mean to you?

You’ve probably heard the phrase: socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Tax the poor and small business to give to big business.
That’s corporatism, which’s a form of elitism, which’s the opposite of what populism means to me.
I’m going to reverse the phrase and add a few things.
To me, populism means socialism, and libertarianism for the poorest 99%, capitalism, and authoritarianism for the richest 1%.

That is, populism means socialism/positive rights (government gives to), and libertarianism/negative rights (government doesn’t take from) for the poorest 99%, capitalism/negative duties (government doesn’t give to), and authoritarianism/positive duties (government takes from) for the richest 1%.
Populism is when government gives the people something they want, like affordable housing, free, but voluntary healthcare and higher education at the elite’s expense, but asks little or nothing of the people in return, it minimally taxes the people or not at all, it minimally regulates the people’s cultural, personal and social lives or not at all.

I disagree with this: “asks little or nothing of the people in return”

What they ask for, demand in fact, is very simple: Your Vote. You are “given” Welfare and Benefits, and what they ask/demand, is you vote Democrat/Socialist/Communist party. If you don’t, then they will sabotage, deny benefits, dox, gaslight, and a number of other threats/attacks to force the matter. Welfare is a means of “buying-back” a vote. That’s its very purpose. Populaism buys more Popular vote. Democrats have dominated the US political power through this means. They vote themselves into power. They tax the enemy (Republicans), then put that money into more Welfare, which buys more Democratic votes. They keep doing this over and over, which is why the matter of UBI is coming, as even more leverage to buy votes. It’s a factor of using their political power and leverage, to buy more political power and leverage.

What I mean is, real populists wouldn’t tax or limit the liberty of the 99%.
The 99% give up too much of what little they have as it is.
And I don’t like troublemakers, people who try to win votes by intimidation, disgusting.
Nothing populist about the 99% fighting with itself.