I'd like to see you try!

Good answer.

I think that protecting the lives of unborn babies is a just and worthy cause.

So, I assume you have no problem in principle of me advocating for the storming of abortion clinics.

Be careful what you wish for!

As I have observed before, some have given up on democracy. That justifies everything else.

It can come to that but its far too big a prize to abandons so easily

I don't want to see you try but if you feel strongly enough then maybe you should. I would then support you being arrested for breaking the law.

I actually have given up on democracy. Or, perhaps more precisely, the ruling class has perverted the democratic process to a point in which it isn't particularly democratic any more. It is in that sense that I think America is at a point-of-no-return.

I have long held and said that "Republican vs. Democrat", "Right vs. Left", and the "Conservative vs Liberal" dichotomies aren't the most accurate representations of the "sides" in American politics. I believe that the most accurate and useful dichotomy is "The Ruling Class vs. Ordinary Folks."

The con is persuading people that their vote doesn't matter when the tragedy of democracy is that we get what we vote for.

Giving up is a huge part of the problem

I agree that if one engages in civil disobedience one must accept the consequences. Most (if not all) of the great advocates for justice throughout history spent at least some time in jail (or worse).

That's a valid point. However, I don't think our vote does matter in any meaningful sense.

And if it is true that our vote doesn't matter, then the bigger con is acting like it does matter.

Perhaps we can call it Self-Perpetuating Self-Delusion.

Maybe but it does matter. It is ~everything

Fair enough.

Moving forward, I plan to operate under the assumption that my vote doesn't matter. (The exception being local elections.)

Since this is the "Politics and Society" forum, I plan to shift my focus more toward the "Society" part.

Sanders was a populist too before he gave that up.

Hugo Chavez was a populist.

Populism is by definition not "using emotion in politics" but rather it's the antithesis of elitism. And plenty of support for that argument can be found by googling 'populism vs elitism'. If populism seems to rely on emotional appeals, it's likely because making emotional appeals against being ruled by a class of overlords is going to be really easy.

How is sanders a populist ?
Didn’t he just advocate policies that actually already exist in other countries like universal Healthcare, cheaper education and a reduction of wealth gap ?

Sanders is more like a fake-populist (like Trump), but just like Trump he criticized the ruling class and would use rhetoric like "the 99%".

Reduction of the wealth gap would also absolutely be a populist position, but arguing for something that exists elsewhere wouldn't make a person not a populist.

Under what conditions should democracy be given up on?

The 99% vs the capitalist elite.

I say right around the time a person is old enough to stop believing in Santa Claus.

I agree with the 99% part. But there is a lot more going than just capitalism. It's also about power and control. And there is nothing inherently sinister about capitalism. It's when it becomes so-called "crony-capitalism" that the wheels start to come off.

I'll go with "The 99% vs. The Rulers"

That's about right.

In my opinion, when someone shouts "We need to defend democracy", they may as well be saying "We need to defend Santa Claus."

They are both what some philosophers might call "useful fictions."

I would say never. But some places at some times dont have it - they are not imo the times or places we should aspire to be.

The worst thing about trumpism/etc imo is the threat to democracy.

I dont know. The equivalent to sanders in the uk was not short of proper radical policies. Maybe too many at times but it was far from merely an emotional appeal about bad things.

Unfortuantely we have moved to a centarist populism which is offering little more than 'we're not as bad as the ones you hate'. The fight continues

I feel like your definition of populism is mostly just "bad charismatic people".

The key thing is offering somenthign well thought out to significantly address the issues people are unhappy about.

That can be good or bad from my pov

Just a low content thought I've believed for a while now.

Groups on the left tend to really suck at creating slogans to capture their ideas and movements. Two recent blunders (IMHO)

Black lives Matter. I read the origins of this slogan by the person who created it. It was a response to watching another white on black police killing. Her outburst was basically "hey, those black lives matter, the thought being that the police were acting as if they didn't. So that makes sense.

But, as a rally cry, they should have used Black Lives Matter Too. That would have gotten the same point across, but completely eliminated the retort of All lives matter; blue lives matter, etc. it would have reinforced that they were just seeking to be treated like everyone else, and not seeking some sort of preferential treatment.

The second is Defund the Police. First of all, with the exception of a very small element on the far, far left, no one was actually advocating to eliminate the police and zero out their funding. Rather it was about taking some money from police departments while simultaneously removing certain functions and responsibilities, particularly irt responding to mental health related calls. So it was really meant to be a policy of relooking the role of armed police officers in certain roles. But that slogan completely misses the mark.

Both of those poorly worded slogans became public relations anchors around the movements and gave republicans ready made talking points to attack democrats with. Self inflicted wounds are the most painful.