Is right wing "populism" (Oxymoron) destroying the planet?

[cnhinton]

[Anonymous]

No. Modern civilisation is destroying the planet. In order for modern civilisation to run we rely on the use of finite resources and we cause heavy pollution.

Literally the only thing that would prevent the destruction of the world would be for us to somehow return to a more sustainable, simple way of life. Which will not happen until we cause so much damage and use so many natural resources that we no longer can, which will cause absolute chaos and mass death.

Until then people will not be willing to do that purposely because that would mean a massive ratcheting down of living standards. In fact many people today would not survive it, they’d be too weak both physically and mentally. They’ll instead continue to believe that the scientists will figure it out. They’ll believe bogus science and bogus solutions to these problems.

It also probably couldn’t happen anyway with the number of people we have now.

[cnhinton]

I agree with environmentalism, but you still didn't answer my question which was referring to right wing populism, which opposes environmentalism and is causing chaos around the world.

[Opinion Owner]

The reason I didn’t mention it is also because most left-wing ideas of environmental solutions are bogus too, and will barely make an impact at all. They’ll make certain people rich though.

[cnhinton]

So nuclear winter then?

[Opinion Owner]

There’s no real solution. That might happen.

[cnhinton]

I think there are dark times coming, but we'll survive it and global warming will go away.

I think it will be another crisis of the late middle ages when 80% of Europe died.

Another Renaissance will happen afterwards.

I wish you well.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why do people try to claim Trump supporters are "right wing"?

Trump isn't right wing. Trump is trump wing.

And so are his supporters. There isn't one Conservative principle they believe in, because there isn't one Conservative principle Trump believes in. One day is hugging Mike Tyson, the next he is claiming Tyson is a violent thug who needs to be arrested. One day he has the Clintons over to attend his wedding and he is donating to Hillary's campaign, the next day he is claiming she should be burned at the stake.

He has no morals, no ethics. He does not represent right wing populism or any ideology.

[MountAverage]

Well, right-wing populism works because it's based on lies and manipulation. If right-wing politicians had to be honest to its supporters, they'd lose a lot of them.

[Anonymous]

No. SJWs are doing that. Right leaning people are just the scapegoat.

[Anonymous]

What makes "right-wing populism" an oxymoron?

[cnhinton]

Right wing opposes egalitarianism and promotes hierarchies and views inequality as natural.

Populism opposes the elites and egalitarianism.

Also, notice how the GOP accuses anybody of wanting to help others less fortunate as being socialists and SJWs.

[cnhinton]

Populism opposes the elites and wants egalitarianism*

[Opinion Owner]

Populism can include egalitarianism but not necessarily. It doesn't express or indicate such in its definition. You're just lumping additional notions onto it. Additionally, I'm right wing and I support egalitarianism. You'd have to elaborate on what you mean by hierarchies, because it's pretty normal to have a boss or have an employee. But it's very clear that your perspective is very inaccurate, and that's why you think a right-wing populist is an oxymoron.

[cnhinton]

Wikipedia says you're an idiot. Google right wing.

What has Trump done to expand egalitarianism?

[Opinion Owner]

What did Wikipedia say specifically? Because I believe Merriam Webster says you're an idiot, and I'm sure we both know which of those two are more credible.

And for the record, one president doesn't reflect the entirety of a party. So even if Trump isn't a populist, that doesn't mean right-wingers can't be populist. But if you want an example, tax cuts.

[Opinion Owner]

To be more clear, during this pandemic, when people needed stimulus checks, we were funding Iranian diversity training. The civilians were being taken advantage of by the elites. We had no say in how the elites were using our taxes. We can tell them to knock it off but they won't listen. Cutting taxes is a start.

[cnhinton]

You're a troll.

All Meriam Webster says is the rightist of a party, which doesn't explain much. Both Britannica and Wikipedia agree with what I'm saying.

[cnhinton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

[cnhinton]

Also how is cutting taxes on billionaires a populist thing? Bahahahaha.

Don't breed dude.

[cnhinton]

Fascism was a right wing populist movement, How did that work out for egalitarianism?

[cnhinton]

Does the GOP sound populist to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gop

No congressman in the GOP is populist. Only Trump claims to be populist which he's not.

Secondly, the only true populists I see are in the Democrat Party - progressives.

[cnhinton]

Cutting is a must when we're trillions of dollars in debt.

Please die,

Are you Right wing because you're Christian?

[cnhinton]

You do realize we are an empire with military bases around the world and fund certain foreign programs to advance our own interests.

I guess you want us to go down the same path as the British Empire.

[Opinion Owner]

You're mistaken. I was referring to the definition of populism, and how it doesn't regard egalitarianism, hence, you're lumping on additional notions, and then using those wrongfully-attributed, additional notions to try and discredit someone's quality of populism. Which is clearly unmerited because you're using as aspect that populism doesn't harbor to try and discredit someone's populism.

The definition of populism is "a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people" it does not mention or indicate anything about egalitarianism. You could literally think "I don't think gay people should have rights" and still be a populist.

So considering that I've referenced a legitimate, viable source to disprove your claim, and you've used Wikipedia, who exactly is the idiot, here?

(Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)

[Opinion Owner]

Also, as I mentioned prior, I am right-wing and I'm an egalitarian. According to you, that's not possible. So would you say that I'm left-wing? Or would you say that I'n not an egalitarian? And if you say I'm not an egalitarian, based on what are you making that deduction? What qualities do I harbor that oppose egalitarianism?

And you say "cutting taxes on billionaires isn't populist?" Are you referring to the same Trump tax cut that 90% of Americans financially benefited from? 83% of the middle class benefited from that tax cut, averaging out to over $1,000 being cut from their taxes?

(Link: www.breitbart.com/.../ )

Not to mention, taxing corporations less means we have less corporations moving out-of-country, thus, we have more jobs here. And we especially need that because our manufacturing/factory base has absolutely eroded away. Even people you likely regard as egalitarian, like Bernie Sanders, said the same thing. He complained about how the US shouldn't have to compete with the slave labor in China, where nearly all of our manufacturing jobs went. We need to make manufacturing favorable or at least decent here in America. I'm sure you're familiar with how large companies have been slowly moving out of places like California or New York (prior to the pandemic, of course) due to these ridiculous taxes.

(Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)

[Opinion Owner]

And stating that facism was a right-wing movement, thus, egalitarianism can't be right wing, is a flawed point. Communism was a left-wing movement where dictators (like Stalin), someone who had more power than everyone else (very un-egalitarian) killed millions, upon millions, upon millions of people. So according to your logic, left-wing can't be egalitarian either. But we both know how silly it is to mention extremities and claim they are reflective of the majority. Facism doesn't define the right-wing. Communism doesn't define the left-wing.

Now on to your remark about the GOP apparently not being populist. You very well may be right (though you very well may be wrong, I'd have to look into each of them). But that doesn't mean that the right-wing can't be or aren't populist. You need to remember that the right wing has exponentially more civilians than they do officials. All that means is that we have a two-party system where we have a very narrow means of selection. For example, I watched a video recently where this black lady said she was a proud Democrat, but then later during the discussion she said "well I know that the democrats will come to us every 4 years and make these promises, and then after that they dissappear." But a moment ago she said she was a proud democrat? She voted for those people knowing they're simply going to disregard her once they won. Same goes for the right. There's a different between establishment Democrats/Republicans and civilian Democrat/Republicans. And not to mention, you claim the right-wing can't be populist, not "they aren't currently populist," so mentioning how the GOP supposedly isn't populist doesn't explain how they can't be populist, if it's true it just explains that the GOP isn't currently populist.

(Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)

[Opinion Owner]

And no, I'm not right-wing because I'm Christian, I'm literally an atheist (again, you're just proving your perspective is inaccurate).

And yes, cutting taxes is just fine when we are trillions of dollars in debt. You just seem to be a shallow thinker. Hypothetically, let's say $100 of our taxes goes to the national debt, $100 of our taxes go to building roads and $100 of our taxes goes to diversity training. If we cut taxes by $100 and then don't use taxes for diversity training, you just cut taxes without lowering the amount that we pay off our national debt. In fact, you could cut taxes and INCREASE how much we pay for the national debt. What matters is how we distribute our tax money. So your claim that lowering taxes must mean we neglect our national debt is particular silly and unintelligent.