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.
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.
The US could’ve done the same, and yet…
You know what? It’s BECAUSE of the US that we, French, have this now.
The US has become a cautionary tale for:
• Refusing Universal Healthcare
• Opposing Racial and Cultural Equity
• Revoking Women’s Bodily Autonomy
• Expanding Excessive Incarceration
• Exonerating Police Violence
• Dismissing Effective Gun Control
• Ignoring Mass Shootings
• Denying Veteran and First Responder Care
• Allowing Environmental Toxins
• Approving Carcinogens in Food
• Condoning High Infant Mortality
• Eradicating LGTBQ+ Rights
• Encouraging Religion in Government
• Dismantling Social Services
• Rejecting Living Wage, Retirement, and Pension Issues
• Persecuting the Low-income and Homeless
• Promoting the Purchase of Politicians and Judges
You’re welcome
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.
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.
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’.
The brilliant minds behind ancient aliens have spoken people! Throw in the towel!
This is amusing, thank you for sharing.
That seems to be the type of populists we have in the current decade.
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.
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.
What? Where were they anywhere close to that?
deleted by creator