Is Trump a Populist?

[Pat Speer]

 

   On 2/24/2023 at 7:11 PM,  Matthew Koch said: 

All I've really gotten from you is that you have a biased against the right and you seem to hide behind vagueness, so that's why you are in the left box because everything you have said is consistent with that box; BLM, Abortion, Gun Control, Anti Tobacco, Tucker Carlson etc etc. Now I'm goin to assume you tell people you are independent like you do with the JFK case "I'm not a Ct'er or a LN'er" which to me is a miliqel toast fence sitting to argue without stating a position so that you can't be attacked. Michael Griffin does this alot from a conservative position. So I find it very interesting that you are trying to frame the debate to your advantage instead of understanding that the Republican Party is evolving to be more populist and less Neo con.. Meanwhile positions like being anti war are not longer part of the Democratic Party (another thing you have in common with them, seems like the scales are tipping to the left box. 

Expand  

A few points in response. . 

1. I don't see support of BLM and support of measures against big tobacco as left/right issues. I hope and suspect that many right-wingers and Republicans are on the right side of these issues.

2. I'm embarrassed that I have to explain this to you, but birth control and abortion rights were once championed by Republicans as well as Democrats.  

3. You're out of your mind if you think I'm vague about my positions on the JFK case. I have made thousands of posts online, written the equivalent of a dozen or more books, and made a dozen or so presentations on the case. And my position is clear. I am a conspiracy theorist. The evidence leads me to suspect more than one shooter fired on JFK, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not among these shooters. Period. 

4. From late 2016 to early 2017, I performed a detailed study of the country in the wake of the 2016 election, and found that much of what we were being told at that time was inaccurate. In the end, I concluded that Trumpism was not actually populism. I explained this in my survey "From Obama Nation to Abomination.'

 

Populism is a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite,

(Okay, so far, so good. Trump told his followers they were being exploited by liberal elites and the media, and that this had led to an invasion of brown people who were after their jobs, or worse, terrorists who were out to destroy their way of life.)

and which seeks to resolve this.

(Now, this may or may not apply to Trump. Many would say no. While Trump pushed to restrict immigration from seven (and then six) heavily Muslim countries, and similarly pushed congress to fund a border wall, these were but skeletons of the proposals he'd promised he was going to push--ones where all Muslims were banned, and Mexico paid for the wall. More telling, then, is that he spent many of his first days in office trying to accomplish things that were in apposition to what he'd claimed on the campaign trail. While he'd promised his followers cheaper and "better" health care, for example, he quickly got behind a plan which would raise prices for most of his followers, and ultimately deprive many of them of coverage. He also pushed plans that were not widely discussed on the campaign trail, and not widely supported by his followers. To be clear, in his first days in office he prioritized plans to 1) increase the availability of guns to the mentally ill, 2) allow coal companies to create more water pollution, 3) allow car companies to create more air pollution, 4) allow oil companies to bribe foreign officials without facing any consequences, and 5) drastically cut taxes on the rich, including himself, by drastically reducing services to the poor.)

The underlying ideology of populists can be left, right, or center. Its goal is uniting the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated "little man" against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the established politicians)

(Now, this is where I have a big problem with the description of Trump as a populist, and the election of Trump as a populist uprising. Trump did not campaign as being "uncorrupt." That was Bernie Sanders. Trump, he pretty much bragged about how corrupt he was--about how he did business all over the world with all kinds of people, about how he'd avoided paying taxes whenever possible, no matter how sleazy the loophole. He actually refused to show his taxes! Or put his business in a blind trust! And what's this about "the established politicians"? While Trump did indeed promise to "drain the swamp" he quickly proved the lie to his words by making the leader of the party in power his Chief of Staff, and by adopting the pet legislation of a long-time leader of the party in power--even though it was at odds with his own purported agenda.)

and their camp of followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals).

(Nope, this isn't Trump, either. While he at times campaigned against Clinton by attacking her ties to Wall Street, he turned around and filled his cabinet with former Goldman-Sachs employees and billionaires. As far as intellectuals, well, that's not exactly true, either. Trump has not denounced intellectuals as much as he has sought to replace them with pseudo-intellectuals--namely, Steve Bannon and his fellow supporters of "economic nationalism".)

It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses.

(Now, there's the ding-ding-ding. Trump is not a populist. He may have pretended to be one, but he is not the real deal. While his campaign appearances were carefully staged to make it look like he had this incredible groundswell of support among the common folk, these were actually closed events. When it came time to have an open event (such as his inauguration), to be clear, we saw that the "masses" willing to show up in support of Trump were actually dwarfed both by the masses who'd showed up for his predecessor's inauguration, and the masses who marched in opposition to his inauguration in the days that followed. And that's not even to point out that Trump rejects all polls in which his popular support is questioned. The man is simply not as popular as he claims to be, or needs to be--to be the leader of a populist uprising. And has sought to hide this from those paying attention.)

•  
• Quote

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

   On 2/24/2023 at 7:11 PM,  Matthew Koch said: 

All I've really gotten from you is that you have a biased against the right and you seem to hide behind vagueness, so that's why you are in the left box because everything you have said is consistent with that box; BLM, Abortion, Gun Control, Anti Tobacco, Tucker Carlson etc etc. Now I'm goin to assume you tell people you are independent like you do with the JFK case "I'm not a Ct'er or a LN'er" which to me is a miliqel toast fence sitting to argue without stating a position so that you can't be attacked. Michael Griffin does this alot from a conservative position. So I find it very interesting that you are trying to frame the debate to your advantage instead of understanding that the Republican Party is evolving to be more populist and less Neo con.. Meanwhile positions like being anti war are not longer part of the Democratic Party (another thing you have in common with them, seems like the scales are tipping to the left box. 

Expand  

A few points in response. . 

1. I don't see support of BLM and support of measures against big tobacco as left/right issues. I hope and suspect that many right-wingers and Republicans are on the right side of these issues.

2. I'm embarrassed that I have to explain this to you, but birth control and abortion rights were once championed by Republicans as well as Democrats.  

3. You're out of your mind if you think I'm vague about my positions on the JFK case. I have made thousands of posts online, written the equivalent of a dozen or more books, and made a dozen or so presentations on the case. And my position is clear. I am a conspiracy theorist. The evidence leads me to suspect more than one shooter fired on JFK, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not among these shooters. Period. 

4. From late 2016 to early 2017, I performed a detailed study of the country in the wake of the 2016 election, and found that much of what we were being told at that time was inaccurate. In the end, I concluded that Trumpism was not actually populism. I explained this in my survey "From Obama Nation to Abomination.'

 

1. You seem to think you are like Switzerland and are Neutral. Only underscores your California leftist bias due to the fact that you don't see how there is more nuance to the issues and they are not Black and White, BLM is marxist liberation theology disguised as social justice. Ever look a FBI crime statistics Pat? Why do you think people like Marcellus Wiley are against the group. https://www.foxnews.com/sports/former-nfl-player-marcellus-wiley-rips-black-lives-matter-after-it-removes-page-on-disrupting-nuclear-family-structure

2. If you are embarrassed than you should be able to easily cite when Conservatives were ever for Abortion, secondly back to #1 What group is mostly aborting their children? IF conservatives were racists like you think why wouldn't they be more pro abortion? 

3. You don't take stances, as to avoid criticism.. that is basically what you are doing in this attempt to frame the debate by not holding a position and forcing me to defend Trump. SO what would your political views be classified as on the spectrum or who on the spectrum are your ideas similar to? what did Michael Griffin call that being "Eclectic", guess what I'm not a republican.. I just support most of what they are doing like how I did with the Dems under Bush before they turned in to the Party of Blue Anon TDS hysteria Neo Liberal Fascism. SO if you do that stances on JFKA Here's your chance Pat; "Who Killed Kennedy?"

4. Was your study peer reviewed by anyone?  Does it have data or citation or should I just take your word for it? 

Give this a watch because Gad Saad is basically replying to you since Cranston basically said the same thing you did 

 

 

[Matthew Koch]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Populism is a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite,

(Okay, so far, so good. Trump told his followers they were being exploited by liberal elites and the media, and that this had led to an invasion of brown people who were after their jobs, or worse, terrorists who were out to destroy their way of life.)

and which seeks to resolve this.

(Now, this may or may not apply to Trump. Many would say no. While Trump pushed to restrict immigration from seven (and then six) heavily Muslim countries, and similarly pushed congress to fund a border wall, these were but skeletons of the proposals he'd promised he was going to push--ones where all Muslims were banned, and Mexico paid for the wall. More telling, then, is that he spent many of his first days in office trying to accomplish things that were in apposition to what he'd claimed on the campaign trail. While he'd promised his followers cheaper and "better" health care, for example, he quickly got behind a plan which would raise prices for most of his followers, and ultimately deprive many of them of coverage. He also pushed plans that were not widely discussed on the campaign trail, and not widely supported by his followers. To be clear, in his first days in office he prioritized plans to 1) increase the availability of guns to the mentally ill, 2) allow coal companies to create more water pollution, 3) allow car companies to create more air pollution, 4) allow oil companies to bribe foreign officials without facing any consequences, and 5) drastically cut taxes on the rich, including himself, by drastically reducing services to the poor.)

The underlying ideology of populists can be left, right, or center. Its goal is uniting the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated "little man" against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the established politicians)

(Now, this is where I have a big problem with the description of Trump as a populist, and the election of Trump as a populist uprising. Trump did not campaign as being "uncorrupt." That was Bernie Sanders. Trump, he pretty much bragged about how corrupt he was--about how he did business all over the world with all kinds of people, about how he'd avoided paying taxes whenever possible, no matter how sleazy the loophole. He actually refused to show his taxes! Or put his business in a blind trust! And what's this about "the established politicians"? While Trump did indeed promise to "drain the swamp" he quickly proved the lie to his words by making the leader of the party in power his Chief of Staff, and by adopting the pet legislation of a long-time leader of the party in power--even though it was at odds with his own purported agenda.)

and their camp of followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals).

(Nope, this isn't Trump, either. While he at times campaigned against Clinton by attacking her ties to Wall Street, he turned around and filled his cabinet with former Goldman-Sachs employees and billionaires. As far as intellectuals, well, that's not exactly true, either. Trump has not denounced intellectuals as much as he has sought to replace them with pseudo-intellectuals--namely, Steve Bannon and his fellow supporters of "economic nationalism".)

It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses.

(Now, there's the ding-ding-ding. Trump is not a populist. He may have pretended to be one, but he is not the real deal. While his campaign appearances were carefully staged to make it look like he had this incredible groundswell of support among the common folk, these were actually closed events. When it came time to have an open event (such as his inauguration), to be clear, we saw that the "masses" willing to show up in support of Trump were actually dwarfed both by the masses who'd showed up for his predecessor's inauguration, and the masses who marched in opposition to his inauguration in the days that followed. And that's not even to point out that Trump rejects all polls in which his popular support is questioned. The man is simply not as popular as he claims to be, or needs to be--to be the leader of a populist uprising. And has sought to hide this from those paying attention.)

•  
• Quote

Last time we had a populist President was Kennedy, so by this logic, Kennedy was just scamming people, guess that's why he cut taxes like Trump... 

[Pat Speer]

My study was an analysis of dozens and dozens of polls and studies. Its conclusions were later confirmed by mainstream journalists. You might be too young to remember this, but the 2016 election was initially framed as a populist uprising in which people voted for Trump for economic reasons. My analysis, built on dozens of studies, proved that Trump voters were not in worse economic shape than Clinton voters, but were far less likely to be college-educated, and believe in science. The U.S. was, and remains, in the midst of a culture war, in which people hate people like myself because they think we think we're better than them, or whatever. It's mostly a one-sided war. Big city Dems think reason and kindness will eventually win the day but small-town rabble-rousers are determined to retake the country from those who believe in egads, evolution, and abortion rights, etc, and are determined to the point where they no longer believe in democracy. .  

Edited February 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Matthew Koch]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My study was an analysis of dozens and dozens of polls and studies. Its conclusions were later confirmed by mainstream journalists. You might be too young to remember this, but the 2016 election was initially framed as a populist uprising in which people voted for Trump for economic reasons. My analysis, built on dozens of studies, proved that Trump voters were not in worse economic shape than Clinton voters, but were far less likely to be college-educated, and believe in science. The U.S. was, and reminds, in the midst of a culture war, in which people hate people like myself because they think we think we're better than them, or whatever. It's mostly a one-sided war. Big city Dems think reason and kindness will eventually win the day but small-town rabble-rousers are determined to retake the country from those who believe in egads, evolution, and abortion rights, etc, and are determined to the point where they no longer believe in democracy. .  

Why is it always the case with you Pat that what you don't reply to is the most telling part. 

SO mr I'm not vague "WHO KILLED KENNEDY?"

 

[Matthew Koch]

 

[Matthew Koch]

@Pat SpeerWho killed JFK? 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

@Pat SpeerWho killed JFK? 

What makes you think I know? I've been at this for almost 20 years and the only thing I can tell you is that it's unlikely it was Oswald. 

[Matthew Koch]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What makes you think I know? I've been at this for almost 20 years and the only thing I can tell you is that it's unlikely it was Oswald. 

On 2/26/2023 at 8:28 PM, Matthew Koch said:

 

3. You don't take stances, as to avoid criticism.. that is basically what you are doing in this attempt to frame the debate by not holding a position and forcing me to defend Trump. SO what would your political views be classified as on the spectrum or who on the spectrum are your ideas similar to? what did Michael Griffin call that being "Eclectic", guess what I'm not a republican.. I just support most of what they are doing like how I did with the Dems under Bush before they turned in to the Party of Blue Anon TDS hysteria Neo Liberal Fascism. SO if you do that stances on JFKA Here's your chance Pat; "Who Killed Kennedy?"

 

Like I said in #3 above the fact you won't stick your neck out and say what your opinion is tells me you are a coward.. 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Like I said in #3 above the fact you won't stick your neck out and say what your opinion is tells me you are a coward.. 

I would totally disagree. When something is gray, it should be identified as gray, no matter how many mental defectives say it's white or black.