• SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Our race doesn’t need help, our class does. As long as the people running are for the working class it doesn’t matter. And the fact you don’t consider Bernie white makes me think you’re some kind of Nazi troll.

    • Cherry@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You have representation, …the colour of the skin, and short lived poluarity is irreverent on the matter, what matters is they have the conviction and courage to stand for genuine change for all. You can choose to see a minority, you can choose see a different group, what you should see is leaders to get behind who can make change.

      Stop seeing difference and start supporting those who inspire power to the people. Its galvanizing, step up and say these are my people, my representative. Be the change in the system rather than a silent majority that determines the doom occurs.

      The cat is black and white. There no comment on that matter!

      • bedwyr@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Bernie is Jewish, it sort of counts, but not really. The fact that I was downvoted for calling for white populists just shows how fucking stupid the left is.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          How are you defining populism, then? Lamartinian? Lemonnierian? Silsian? Jaguaribian? Or London School, which is what I took it as.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              “Populism speaks for itself”

              Populism was coined as a term for the opposite to being an aristocrat in the 1800s. Nowadays it can either mean “popular with the common man because it serves the common man” or “attempting to disguise oneself as supporting the common man with an ulterior motive”

              I’m asking you how you define it if you’re saying that those running the Democratic Socialist caucus and elected to their position by constituents is insufficient for your definition.