BCreed1

Not with this kid.

In the era of NIL, I like him. Everything I have heard about him is that he is playing for his team. The one he grew up loving. Like his dream job.

I'm sure MSU will find the funds to keep him because he doesn't want to be any place else.

And that's a rare thing in this era.

Who do you have as your dark horse this year?

MSU?

quote:

---

The definition, as used, makes all successful politicians populists. I kinda in agreement here. There needs to be a better definition.

---

Well, that is literally the definition.

quote:

---

Really want government off my back

---

quote:

---

out of my life as much as possible.

---

Having your back is not the same as on your back. You seem to be combining a lot of different issues that should not be. Here, we are really talking trade and the current climate of fuel prices. I take what you stated as a gov over reach into our personal lives.

quote:

---

Regardless of the bad faith framing you are using here, it's obvious that what I posted is 100% true. Populists want government to specifically enact protectionist mechanisms—which is much different than just "not harming"— they (you) want government to engineer artificial economic conditions to benefit a certain group of Americans at the expense of all other Americans.

---

You can not be seriously suggesting that traditional conservatives never supported government policies that deliberately altered economic conditions in ways that imposed costs on some Americans, that claim is historically indefensible.

By making that argument you, yourself, are contradicting your whole stance. After all, those policies are ACTIONS by a gov. You cannot honestly claim that “real conservatives” have always opposed government intervention that creates winners and losers in the economy.

That's also the flaw in your populist argument. The mere fact that a government policy changes economic conditions, benefits one group, and imposes costs on another does not make the policy populist. Governments have been doing that for centuries under conservative, liberal, progressive, nationalist, and populist administrations.

The actual conservative argument is whether that intervention is justified by legitimate government purposes and consistent with conservative principles. A conservative populist can make precisely that argument.

So if you want to argue that a particular protectionist policy is economically harmful or inconsistent with classical liberal economics, make that argument. But claiming that traditional conservatives never supported policies that deliberately altered markets and produced economic winners and losers is simply false.

You are a citizen who claims the conservative title while supporting the gov creating policies and putting them into play that do just what you are arguing against.

quote:

---

This is where your bad faith framing falls apart, btw. Things like tariffs benefit maybe, at the very, very most, a few million Americans. And the other 330 million Americans pay for that benefit with higher prices.

---

Treating the existence of winners and losers as proof that a policy is populist? That doesn't follow. And historically, conservative U.S. governments have repeatedly used tariffs and other economic interventions.

You're arguing that tariffs deliberately change economic conditions, benefit some Americans, and impose costs on others. That's been a feature of American economic policy under plenty of governments that nobody would seriously describe as populist.

Conservative U.S. governments have used tariffs throughout American history. Reagan imposed major trade restrictions, including tariffs and quotas, when he believed they served American industries.

So you can't define populism as “government deliberately changes economic conditions to help one group at the expense of another” because conservative governments have been doing exactly that for generations.

You may believe the costs exceed the benefits—and you may be right in a particular case—but that doesn't establish that the people supporting tariffs are abandoning conservative principles or acting merely out of personal self-interest.

The actual conservative debate is whether government intervention is justified by a legitimate national interest and whether it remains consistent with constitutional and conservative principles.

quote:

---

Like I said earlier, it's nothing but a jobs program-wealth transfer scheme, just like Obamacare, welfare, or thousands of unnecessary government jobs.

---

That's actually where your argument falls apart. Free trade itself has always involved massive transfers of wealth between economic groups.

So the government doesn't have to impose a tariff to create winners and losers. And historically, conservative American governments have absolutely participated in this process.


Recap, we have established that either you are wrong about the meaning of populist, conservative populists, and gov "interference" or you are correct and you area populist by our own words.

History isn't on your side by your very own words OR you truly believe that the USA has always been a leftist nation.

quote:

---

SlowFlowPro

---

Anybody who knows tis guy understands he is a troll. Just look at his "understanding"

quote:

---

Do we expect the Fed gov to honor the constitution? Hell yeah we do.



Straight out of the leftist playbook

---

He's clueless.

Erwin Chemerinsky: “start fresh and rewrite” the U.S. Constitution, arguing that America should begin the process of drafting an entirely new Constitution.

That is the left. That is not honoring the constitution.

The DSA's 2026 platform explicitly calls for “draft[ing] a new constitution” and proposes abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with congressional selections, and expanding voting rights to permanent residents.

This is why most people/posters ignore this troll.

I don't think that this was directed towards me, but I will jump in.

quote:

---

Populists believe that government exists to ensure that they have a job that overpays them for completely unskilled labor.

---

Wrong. Most of what you posted is not close.

Let's start with the term "Populist".

Noun: a person, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

By that definition, everybody in the USA is a populist.

Adjective: relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

Again, that places all people into that category. I don't know of any conservative that feels like the GOP has had their backs. They run on one thing and sway with the wind. This nation, with the GOP elected officials, has marched lock and step with the dems on issues that matter.

Again, all are populists.

Now do we expect the gov to act in the best interest of America and it's citizens? DAMN STRAIGHT we do. That even makes YOU a populist. Does that mean standing up to rogue nations gaming the system at our citizens expense? Yes we do. Do we expect the Fed gov to honor the constitution? Hell yeah we do.

For Conservatives (now what you label as populists) we had enough of the GOP selling out our nation in many many different ways. Immigration is one.

quote:

---

They want to be able to make $90,000 a year for standing at a conveyor belt and turning a screw. Requires maybe a sixth grade education. And they want the government to enact protectionist policies to make it so.

---

That's a bs comment and you know it. I don't know of a single conservative, now populist, who thinks that. Not one. Sure we expect the fed gov to NOT ENACT policies that harm it's citizens. It's more than insane to suggest the fed gov (people we elect) should not be held accountable and that we should sit idly by and blame everybody BUT them for doing things that harm our people.

quote:

---

It's the same sort of wealth distribution scheme that Obamacare is. Or that the majority of government jobs are. Everyone paying more so that a select, relatively small group gets to benefit.

---

LMAO! What about the above is wealth distribution?

quote:

---

Dude,

---

:rotflmao: " HEY DUDE.."

quote:

---

we've moved passed trying to debate your stupid economic theories

---

No, you stayed in your little bitty box next to mommy.

Like I said, you are simplistic.

quote:

---

Taxing Authority

---

Yet another clueless dumbass who can't see his own dick due to his oversized gut.


Just friggin stupid.

quote:

---

How many of those refineries are in Alabama?

---

:bow: