Talk:Conservative populism

I think this page should be merged with right-wing populism as the populism it is describing basically is right-wing populism. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 13:00, January 8, 2022 (EST)

"Right-wing" is a slightly pejorative, and superficial. I'll merge the other entry into "conservative populism." Thanks for pointing this out.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:56, January 10, 2022 (EST)

Right-wing populism has more adherents than conservative populism. Because a lot of right-wing populism has to do with nativism and nationalism - especially anti-Muslim immigration sentiments. Conservative (talk) 14:46, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

Nationalism, nativism, anti-immigration sentiment, and working-class populism comprised the hallmarks of early 20th-century progressive ideology, yet nowadays is designated as "right-wing populism." Perhaps "right-wing" populism isn't even right-wing to begin with. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 15:05, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

A "popu;ist" is a person with an IQ of 86. It's a pejorative term invented by the yellow press in the 1880s. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:06, March 13, 2023 (EDT

It would be different if so-call conservative or rightwing "populists" used the term about themselves, but it's not. The term was invented by leftwing journalists and academics and assigned to Democrats who began fleeing the Democrat party in the 1980s. Supposed "rightwing" or conservative analysts, pundits, and commentators following leftist talking points is real tragedy for the conservative movement. Apparently the conservative movement does not have enough original thinkers and commentators who can formulate original ideas without having to build on leftwing propaganda. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 17:55, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

So much for sexual morality—"right-wing" populism is closer to godless Marxism than you think!

Moved from: Talk:Main_Page#So_much_for_sexual_morality.E2.80.94.22right-wing.22_populism_is_closer_to_godless_Marxism_than_you_think.21

Apparently biblical sexual morality is no longer a thing for the modern political "right" as zealous natalism takes priority while taking a "pro-life" guise, seeing that premarital sex and teen pregnancy are now approved! Who would've thought that the contemporary leaders of the supposed "conservative movement" were really just a bunch of morally degraded collectivists? As Ludwig von Mises put it, you're all a bunch of socialists. "Right-wing populists" are just early 20th–century progressives with a new hood, with the change being how left–right politics became redefined; the political ripples of liberal policy shifts in WWII resulted in traditional left-wing elements joining forces with old-school reactionary conservatives in revolt against the late New Deal phases (well, this actually began even in the early 1930s when the SCUC, financed by Northern Republican-affiliated businessmen, ironically sought a united front with Huey Long, though it gained barely any traction).

Now, to analyze from the much more important, deeply Christian perspective—why is the name of Christianity being so brazenly perverted, slandered, and blasphemed exponentially in recent years by so-called "right-wing populists"? (to my admission, it took a while to realize this fully) Because it was allowed to happen by supposed conservatives who decided to disgrace the gospel by syncretizing an already–watered down understanding of Christianity with fringe ultranationalist politics. The Apostle Paul told Timothy:

“	Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared.	”
—1 Timothy 4:1–2

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Saturday, 21:29, March 10, 2023 (EST)

Maybe Boebert's son's girlfrined should have quietly snuck off and had an abortion, if that would have made you happy. I don't see where your criticism of Boebert's son (who's not even old enough to vote)'s sex life translates into criticism of Boebert and so-called "rightwing populism". Boebert's son is just following the commnd of God to be fruitful and multiply (at least he's not gay). Unlike the latest addition to the Biden family - Hunter's kid with a prostitute - at least Boebert (and earlier Sarah Palin) aren't denying the child.

“	Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared.	”
—1 Timothy 4:1–2

This passage refers to you, perverting the scripture and the meaning of the gospel with false teachings. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:24, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

Cute deflections for the 666th (give or take a few hundred, maybe) time, RobSmith—you are fully capable of understanding that my polemic pertains not to whether the circumstances of conception determine the value of a child, as I am addressing the issue of sexual immorality. I'm also absolutely stunned to hear that Conservapedia's premier Putin-shilling stooge of a liar considers me to be promoting false teachings because I dare to expose the immorality of right-wing populism! Why do you deflect with irrelevant propaganda? Because you hate the light, for Jesus said:

“	...the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.	”
—John 3:19–21

—LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Sunday, 15:35, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

"zealous natalism"?

Do you mean:

1. zealous pre-natalism
2. zealous nativism
3. zealous nationalism

And doubling down on a misuse of scripture doesn't help your cause or argument. You sound like a Seven Day Adventist or anyone of dozens, if not hundreds and thousands of false teachings and prophets who have appeared since the time of Christ (actually, the time of Judah, as related in Genesis chapter 38: Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. So what is the teaching here? The doctrine of grace pre-dates the doctrine of law. Why was the law given? Because of sin. Ye [excluding those who reject God's grace] are not under law but under grace.) RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:49, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

Addendum: The Lion of Judah would never have been born had Judah's strict reading of the law (like Doug Bachelor's) been executed. Mind you, the law of Moses hadn't even been given yet. Why was the law given? Because of sin, i.e. for those in rebellion who reject God's grace. These things have been known since the foundations of the earth were laid. Doug Bachelor's harping on the law as means of salvation ought to be a clue that he is in rebellion against God. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 16:15, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, I said "zealous natalism," and that wasn't a typo, because clearly "right-wing" populists are more concerned with birth rate statistics than sexual morality. Please pay attention.

When did I even mention Pastor Batchelor in this section, until now, simply because you brought him up? You're not even pretending to debate honestly anymore, and instead resort to scapegoating a clique of strawmen. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Sunday, 17:55, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

Oh, so this whole thread has nothing to do with biblical morality or "rightwing populism", it's just something you invented out of your butt. I had no idea Boebert's 17-year-old son was the chief spokesman for rightwing populism.

It's the old grace v. law debate. God's grace predates the giving of the law at Sinai. In fact, it was the rejection of God's grace that caused God to lay down the law, which counts for netzero in your eternal salvation. But strictly speaking, you seem to regard the Lord Jesus Christ as the bastard grandson of whores, prostitutes, and race mixers, which he was under the law. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:45, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

Nice try, derailing a discussion for the zillionth time and engaging in third-rate psychological projection. Who do you think you're fooling aside from yourself? —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Monday, 23:50, March 12, 2023 (EDT)

I am a voice crying in the wilderness. Whom was this written about, (a) Vladimir Putin, (b) the Lord Jesus Christ?

He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 00:19, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

Interesting. Sam Gerrans just posted Sexual Immorality as Propaganda. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:19, March 13, 2023 (EDT)

rebuttal

A few points:

1) A country/community with social conservatism is a healthier society and a less dysfunctional one (less crime, lower divorce rates, less single-parent homes, less homosexuality/transexuality promoting, etc.).

2) There is nothing wrong with making the USA more manufacturing job-friendly (Removing unnecessary regulations; fossil fuel energy friendly which lowers fuel costs, etc.). This is not only good for working-class citizens. It is good for the USA.

3) Corporations have brought back more than $1 trillion of overseas profits to the U.S. since Congress overhauled the international tax system and prodded companies to repatriate offshore funds. It was the populist Trump who made it easy for big companies and other companies to repatriate this money and not get hit with a huge tax bill. The USA moving manufacturing jobs back to the USA due to this matter was good for working-class Americans and good for America.

4) There is nothing wrong with giving families generous tax credits for having a child. Raising the fertility rate of the USA will create new jobs and strengthen society's ability to support the elderly.

5) Small businesses can be a huge driver of economic growth. According to the SBA, small businesses created a net 12.9 million new jobs in the last 25 years, which accounts for roughly 66% of all jobs.[1]

Which Country Is Best to Start a Small Business in? The United States is ranked #6 and could do better. The USA should make it easier for small businesses to compete against big businesses and that starts with causing more small businesses to form in the first place.

The government should not allow big businesses' lobbyists to get regulators to set up nonsensical regulations to create artificial barriers for small businesses' entry into an industry. The government should make it harder for regulators to set up nonsensical regulations. Conservative (talk) 08:53, September 5, 2023 (EDT)

reply

See: Talk:Essay:_A_new_conservative_age_is_rising#LT.27s_response —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] [[User talk:|(talk)]]