Tinidril

Despite the obvious common root in "populism" and "popular", I don't think that's a fair "nutshell" description of populism at all.

The central core of populism is opposition to an elite ruling class. Right wing populism tends to attack education and expertise which does fit loosely with your description, but left wing populism is more focused on wealthy elites. Wealth has always been a terrible proxy for merit or the ability to rule.

To be against populism you either have to disagree that we are largely ruled by a class of elites, or think that being ruled by elites is not a bad thing. Anyone that thinks elites are not in control of the economy and political system in the US is borderline delusional. Anyone who thinks the elites got there by merit need to learn a lot more about figures like Elon Musk, Trump, or the Clintons.

I believe there has already been one instance in this election of a Trump vote from a dead voter.

Reporting on anything related to Epstein is almost non-existent because of all the powerful people that are vulnerable.

I believe the spectrum from capitalism to communism (as both are generally understood) is an illusion and a distraction. In capitalism, capital eventually captures and controls government. In communism, (as it has materialized in the past) the government captures and controls capital. Capital and government become one in either case.

Relating this to Republicans, they are absolutely in favor of the union of corporate and government power. The aspects of communism that they rant about are exactly what they want to bring about. That's how fascism and totalitarianism work.

A true social revolution must empower the people at the "bottom" to make decisions about their own lives as much as possible. The only justifiable excuse to take liberty away from individuals is to protect the liberty of others.

The society the right dreams of is exactly what we have seen under communist regimes, just with different branding. It's just authoritarianism.

We need to make the case that Kamala is better than Trump for Palestine, and do it without demonizing those on the fence. They need to understand that their voices will continue to be heard when the election is over, and a whole lot of the rhetoric being aimed at them says just the opposite, or at least implies it. "Let's elect Kamala so we can continue to fight for Palestine" instead of "Palestine has to take a back seat to all these other issues."

The worst part is the old nugget that every right wing accusation is really a confession. They have every intention of abusing military power against US citizens and want to muddy the waters first to make it another "both sides" thing.

Thanks for checking into it instead of doubling down. We need that today more than we ever have.

It's optimistic of you to assume we'll know the outcome by next Friday. Republicans are going to turn the whole election into a circus if they possibly can.

Is it though? I think it's more of a cult than an ethos. Trump could do a complete 180 on any number of issues and most of his cult wouldn't even notice.

No, he really didn't. First of all, that would have to be done by congress. Second of all, the changes made were to rules within the military itself, and they did the exact opposite. Further restrictions were put in on how the military command structure would authorize engagements related to exceptions that have always been part of the Posse Comitatus Act. You were either fooled by the right wing spin machine, or you are part of it.

Unfortunately the Democrats need slightly more than a bare majority because some Democrats might as well be Republicans.

Kamala has also stated her support for exempting this legislation from the filibuster, something Biden didn't do. She wouldn't technically have the power herself, but might get Senate Democrats on board.

Virginia isn't really in play, and the number of votes in question won't change that. I've got a bad feeling that this ruling was intended to serve a larger purpose than is immediately obvious. Perhaps a signal to state courts in other states? There is another shoe.

The dynamic was understood, it just wasn't formalized in game theory terms. Alternative voting systems weren't in use though, and probably wouldn't even have been practical without automation.