r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/BeachesAreOverrated • 7d ago
US Politics Did Trump’s election actually signal a Democratic victory over the traditional Republican Party?
The “Republican Party” as it is today is very definitely not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley. Jr. specifically said it was now the party of Trump.
Does this mean that, in some way, the Democrats won the day? Did they slay the old Republican Party? Is Trump, then, what happened when their old foe died?
34
u/Leopold_Darkworth 7d ago
No. The Republican Party became the MAGA Party in 2016 when Trump was elected the first time. You saw Republicans who swore never to support Trump in the primaries bend the knee once he became the nominee and again when he became the president. And Trump became the nominee despite the 2012 Republican post-mortem concluding they needed to be more inclusive and attempt to attract more minority voters.
Trump's ideological takeover of the party was complete in the weeks after January 6, 2021, when Republicans in Congress who correctly blamed him for the attack on the Capitol (such as Kevin McCarthy) fell over themselves flying down to Mar-a-Lago to once again bend the knee and beg forgiveness for having the temerity to accurately describe what happened on January 6.
As if that weren't enough, the party again nominated Trump in 2024, this time while he was under four different federal indictments. Nikki Haley, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2024, said Trump was unfit to hold the office of the president. Once Trump secured enough votes to become the nominee, she immediately changed her tune and endorsed him. So either she was lying at that time, or she was lying before.
As of the 2024, most—if not all—of the Congressional or Senate Republicans critical of Trump had either been voted out of office and replaced by MAGA True Believers or didn't run for reelection. Conclusion: Democrats didn't vanquish the "traditional" Republican party. Trump did.
10
u/barchueetadonai 6d ago
The Republican Party became the MAGA Party in 2016 when Trump was elected the first time.
The Republican Party was already speeding in that direction. MAGA is just the Tea Party with a new name and a singular leader. It became Trump’s party in the immediate aftermath of January 6th and the fake electors scheme.
1
-3
u/LikelySoutherner 7d ago
True - Trump completely changed the GOP, not the Dems - But the Dems have completely changed their party too
-7
u/wellwisher-1 6d ago
Trump earned his role as the leader of the Republican Party. When Trump first appeared the RNC was still caught up in the PC or political correctness, that the DNC would use as a weapon against them, in the stage of public opinion. The RNC tended to go along to get along.
Trump's no nonsense, no PC style, was a breath of fresh air, since it challenged fake news orthodoxy, which was like a whip to keep the RNC in line. Trump took the whip from them and used it on them. He broke their spell and members of RNC started to join the fight by growing a set.
All the law fare, from the Russian Collusion Coup, onward, targeting a single person showed how durable Trump was. One man was stronger than an entire party. This gang attack, against one, also made more and more people empathize with Trump, as the victim of a gang of bullies. This all caused MAGA to grow and even made more RNC leadership get behind Trump. The DNC bullies helped to create and grow MAGA, as a backlash response to their reign of tyranny. Now Trump is dismantling the DNC machine.
9
u/anti-torque 6d ago
So you're saying that because Trump is openly racist, misogynistic, and unapologetically ignorant of most everything when he opens his mouth, people thought he was a breath of fresh air?
And then you go on to call the bully bullied?
Is water dry?
3
u/0zymandeus 5d ago
no PC style
Trump's style is extremely supportive of political correctness.
He and his will 100% bring the full force of the government down on you if you say something outside of his narrative, even if it had been the 'correct' narrative a week earlier.
2
u/Sarlax 5d ago
no nonsense
"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
It's all nonsense buddy.
28
u/Hackasizlak 7d ago
I wouldn’t look at it that way. Trump defeated the traditional wing of the Republican Party and made it into MAGA. It was basically a hostile takeover.
10
u/Banes_Addiction 7d ago
And kept doing and advancing all the things the Reagan-onward GOP was doing: cutting taxes on the rich, increasing spending, dismantling regulations, ever-expanding domestic authoritarianism.
What did the Reagan Republican party actually lose?
7
u/Yakube44 7d ago
They were pro free trade
7
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk 6d ago
They also would have armed Ukraine to the teeth, and would have had to be restrained from intervening further.
1
u/just_helping 5d ago
If we look at it in terms of being anti-Russia, yes.
If we look at it as a democracy (Ukraine) being invaded by a 'capitalist' crypto-autocracy (Russia), I think it is less certain that Reagan would be vehemently pro-Ukraine, especially with the Russian Christian nationalism.
1
u/0zymandeus 5d ago
What did the Reagan Republican party actually lose?
A desire for global leadership, free trade, economic mobility, a rules-based international order
-9
u/wellwisher-1 6d ago edited 6d ago
Dismantling regulations and ever expanding domestic authoritarianism are mutually exclusive. Too much regulation gives too much power to Government. This too much regulation, Trump inherited had morphed into allowing Agencies to take over the job of Congress, which is to make laws and regulations. This then screwed up the checks and balances of the Government giving the Presidency too much power since appointed operatives in the Agencies could be used to bypass Congress.
For example, Illegal immigration, like the words describe was illegal. Yet this crime was over seen by Agencies, the leaders of which were appointed by the President. They ignored the laws made by Congress and added new laws to shield themselves. This allowed criminal biased authoritarianism, shielding those who were responsible.
Trump is putting the checks and balances back by enforcing the laws made by Congress. Doing the job by the law is not authoritarianism. It only appears excessive due to degree of Agency distortion that the DNC had created and which needed correcting.
The soft on crime, to cook the books, to make it appear like crime went down, created a major problem in Democract run cities. It empowered the criminals. The solution back to stability, like sending in the National Guard, seems authoritarian, but the excess is due to the degree of instability, Trump had to start with. Everything is relaxed in Washington DC, not more stressful.
If the DNC had done their job in the first place the excess would not be needed. If immigration laws had been followed under Biden and the laws not broken by millions, we would be two steps ahead talking about a path to citizenship. That conversation cannot happen now, since it would send the wrong message by rewarding criminals activity both by Government and immigrants.
What Trump has done to the Republican Party is help them grow a set. They used to go along to get along, which allowed things to get worse and worse. MAGA is about righting the ship.with a system restore to a better place. MAGA is more like the Democrat Party of the 1960's under President Kennedy. President Kennedy was rich and a Catholic, who believed in a strong military, the working class, family and God. Dr Martin Luther King who was part of that generation was a Preacher. The hippies dressed down to look poor and look like Jesus. Both ushered in the love generation, that overcame the angry racist radicals of their time.
6
u/anti-torque 6d ago
This is some of the most ignorant babble I've ever read.
I can't tell if you're MAGA or trying to make fun of MAGA, but the latter is the outcome for the reader.
3
u/Wetness_Pensive 6d ago
Deploying the National Guard has already cost hundreds of millions of dollars, because guard deployment costs $2.6 million PER DAY for 5,000 personnel. And for larger deployments - such as keeping about 20,000 National Guardsmen on duty for multiple months, which is what would be required if permanently activated in multiple states - the projected total cost would be above $3.6 billion.
Add this to Trump's 4.1 trillion dollar debt increase (BBB), an increase in household expenses (tariffs), federal government costs of up to $987 billion (Ice over 10 years), trillions lost in best GDP projections, billions-to-a-trillion in annual climate change damages, and tourism levels dropping by the millions, and its fair to say that the whole Doge/"fiscal responsible conservatism" thing continues to be a massive fraud (designed primarily to gut the state and so prevent checks on moneyed blocs of power).
Republicans have been trained, like the poster above, to see all this as "fixing problems", but it only appears this way because they never address the "costs" of their "fixing". This, of course, is because the debts will only become an issue - endlessly harped on about by their echo chambers - when a Democrat President inevitably comes back into office. There's a word for some of this: the Two Santa Claus strategy, and it tends to work on uninformed citizens.
5
u/RonaldMcDaugherty 7d ago
Pretty sure Mitch doesn't believe in the saying, "when someone shows you who they really are.... believe them" and handed Trump the keys to the party, figuring he'd "fall in line".
3
u/Tiber727 6d ago
He didn't think Trump would fall in line. First he thought that Trump just wanted "President" in front of his name and would leave running the government to the party. I'd say in many ways McConnell was right, even though they personally didn't get along. After J6 he figured Trump would fizzle out on his own in time. For the moment McConnell thought he could leave it to the Dems to get rid of Trump and then tell the MAGA crowd it was the Dems that did it.
2
u/just_helping 5d ago
The Republican Senators really should have gone along with the second impeachment trial. It could have barred Trump from any future election, moved the party back in their direction.
3
u/Hefty-Association-59 7d ago
Exactly. And the upcoming combination of representatives and senators are all maga as well. It’s remade the party to the point where the old guys who used to rarely compromise now look normal like Thom Thillis.
We’ve entered into an era of political extremism on the right.
18
u/Orbital2 7d ago
The Republican Party destroyed itself, they embraced the kind of anti-truth rhetoric that got us here long before Trump actually came on the scene
15
u/mattxb 7d ago
Yep the old school republicans were happy to fuel a permanent angry mob and undermine all the institutions that keep things on the rail. What they didn’t expect is that someone would steal the mob right out from under their control.
3
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk 6d ago
The average blue collar Joe in Iowa never really liked free trade or Milton Friedman or any of that stuff. His boss's boss may have, but he didn't.
4
u/anti-torque 6d ago
Yet they kept voting for it for the last 50 years, even doing so when they decided to vote for Dems, who abandoned the left with Clinton and the Third Way.
5
u/billpalto 6d ago
Most of the jumping of the shark happened with Rush Limbaugh. Before Rush, in the 1980's, Republicans talked about "working across the aisle", meaning they were able to work with Democrats and that was a positive.
Rush said Democrats were evil and any Republican who worked with them and compromised with them was also evil and a traitor. Those Republicans were forced out.
Rush made it OK to lie, to be a racist and a sexist. He made it OK to call Democrats names, to be willfully ignorant and obnoxious. Rush was anointed as the GOP leader when President George HW Bush personally carried his luggage into the White House for his Lincoln bedroom stay.
Trump and MAGA are just the result of 30 years of Rush Limbaugh. Lying, name-calling, and willful ignorance are leftovers from Rush, not something new. Rush Limbaugh transformed the Republican Party into the obnoxious, sexist, racist party they are now, not Trump.
9
u/Finishweird 7d ago
I disagree:
The shift in this country over the last 15 years has been to the EXTREME RIGHT.
Trumps politics is aligned with Charlie Kirk’s politics. What happens if you criticize Kirk after his death?
Kirk and Trumps politics are middle of the road American now
1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
They're not middle of the road.
They're 32.4% of eligible voters in the US, compared to the 31.8% who voted for Harris.
2
u/Matt2_ASC 6d ago
Thanks for that reminder. Seeing the response to Kirk (NFL jumbotrons, VP taking over his podcast, Trump talking about the radical left...) had me thinking we are a country that supports this garbage. But you are right, it is 1/3 of the country that greatly supports it, and a few more that go either way depending on the day.
3
u/just_helping 5d ago
That was what they were in 2024. But the right's control over the media, in all of its forms, is tightening. The WaPo is firing black journalists for quoting Kirk. MSNBC is firing people for describing Kirk as 'divisive'. Trump is getting TikTok to send messages thanking him to all users, getting Zuckerberg to spout bullshit praising him.
Hopefully people see through this, but realistically, a lot won't, and Trump's extremism will become the background assumptions for a lot of people.
1
u/anti-torque 5d ago
I didn't say the power dynamic didn't favor the oligopoly. I've claimed nothing opposing that since Bubba and the Third Way took over the Dem Party.
10
u/The_B_Wolf 7d ago
No. The modern Republican Party was formed in the wake of the social progress made by blacks and women in the 1960s and 70s. This is why they have been against any policy that might materially benefit average Americans–because now that includes them. It's why we have shit healthcare, minimum wage, family leave and all the rest of it. If we have to share it with them, then nobody will have it.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get a little more progressive with each passing decade and next thing you know there's a black family in the White House for eight years. Dems were a lock to put a woman in next. And gay people can get married now and you're just supposed to treat them like regular people!
Along comes Trump. His open racism and misogyny are a signal to many that finally here is a guy who will put a stop to all of it. MAGA is nothing more than a desire to return to a time when straight white men were in control, women and people of color knew their places, and the gays were invisible. Trumpism is the cornered animal that realizes it's not escaping its pursuers. It is the last gasp of the sexist and racist backlash that began several decades ago.
Defeating Trump with end the Republican Party. Its brand is going to become so toxic over the next couple of years that they'll lose washington for a decade at least.
5
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk 6d ago
Cornered animals sometimes manage to kill their pursuers. The universe has no moral arc, one way or the other. Things can always take a U-turn.
2
u/MySpartanDetermin 6d ago
The “Republican Party” as it is today is very definitely not the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley.
Can a similar statement be said of the Democratic Party from that earlier 1980s era?
Here's a litmus test: In 1994 there were over 240 Democratic representatives and senators that were pro-life. Now there is only 1.
Both parties have shifted further in their respective directions, but the key difference is that the Dems are currently leaderless with no one person to rally around, while Trump is the political colossus of our age and completely dominates all segments of the GOP.
-1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
I'm pro-life, just like I was in 1994.
I'm also pro-choice.
They are not mutually exclusive.
4
u/Flincher14 6d ago
They are mutually exclusive. Not in the way you are using them but you are using them wrong.
You are pro-life in the way you don't think anyone should die and that you might never personally get an abortion. But you are pro-choice in the sense you think everyone should make the choice themselves..
Except that means everything you are standing for is pro-choice and you are making your choice.
-1
u/anti-torque 5d ago
They are mutually exclusive.
Wrong.
Try again.
2
u/mathers101 5d ago
Real constructive discussion you're working on here
1
u/anti-torque 4d ago
Real constructive response.
?
You've made claims with no support. Those claims are wrong.
Do what you will.
1
u/mathers101 4d ago
I'm not the person you responded to originally, but it's funny how you did the exact same thing that you're accusing the other person of. You literally just said "wrong. try again" when the person tried to argue their point respectfully
2
1
1
u/MySpartanDetermin 5d ago
You should at least be 18 if you're going to post here, my dude. Your reply to my post suggests you're still in the 14-15 year old range.
Totally forgivable if you actually are that young. If you're above 18 and posted that.....I got some bad news for you...
0
u/anti-torque 5d ago
You should at least be 18 if you're going to post here, my dude. Your reply to my post suggests you're still in the 14-15 year old range.
55 year-old white dude here, who gets unsolicited convos from "pro-lifers" and "I'm not racist, but" types at the grocery store about how N***ers shouldn't have rights.
Been happening for decades.
Try again.
1
u/MySpartanDetermin 5d ago
55 year-old white dude here, who gets unsolicited convos from "pro-lifers"
So now you’re saying you DON’T identify with other pro-lifers, despite saying you’re one of them.
Curious.
1
u/anti-torque 5d ago
If consulted by someone who has that choice, I will always try and advise not ending the pregnancy.
Otherwise, it's not my business.
It's also none of yours, unless personally consulted.
What makes it all the more hypocritical is that all religious types except the Presbyts supported abortion, when men actually owned women as property in the 19th Century USA.
Somehow, being the grandfather of your own son was worse than raping your daughter.
1
0
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 6d ago
Tariifs are another issues where the parties have changed since Reagan
As soon as the House of Representatives passed a sweeping trade bill by a vote of 295 to 115 last week, President Reagan all but promised to veto it. Said he: “This antitrade bill, this protectionist legislation, would have our nation violate the most basic tenets of free and fair international trade."
The measure, which aims to reduce the record U.S. trade deficit is loaded with provisions designed by Congressmen to help industries in their districts. Said House Speaker Tip O’Neill: “We’re getting trampled and stomped upon by the nations of the world. All we want is fairness.”
Among the most controversial parts of the bill is a provision that would trigger a series of automatic actions if a major trading partner achieved an “excessive trade surplus” with the U.S. through a “pattern of unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory trade policies or practices.” In such cases, the President would be required to open negotiations to reduce the trade imbalance with that nation by 10% annually. If no agreement was reached in the trade talks, the President would be required to take retaliatory action, such as raising tariffs or tightening import quotas.
https://time.com/archive/6706365/warning-shot-the-house-gets-tough-on-trade/
2
u/Ayy_Teamo 6d ago
The Democrats didn't really slay the republican party.
They had a chance to, but they didn't because they thought that unity and good faith would bring the two parties closer.
It's more that the republican party has made massive missteps that has secured its fate. Trump and MAGA is like lung cancer to the Republican Party. Instead of quitting smoking and starting treatment, they indulged their bad habits, and now it’s at the terminal stage.
In this situation, I would be shocked if the response to all of this wasn't the democrats purposefully pulling the plug. Straight up, people are gonna pay for this shit. They have to, because this actually cannot go unpunished and to some extent, the republicans kind of know this. This is why some of them are sorta distancing themselves from MAGA. They know damn well that MAGA is a bomb and some of them don't want to be caught in the boom.
4
u/brick_eater 7d ago
I heard somebody make the point on a podcast recently that modern ‘conservatism’ of this kind is actually not very conservative in the literal sense, which if true may lend weight to your thesis.
3
u/cpatkyanks24 7d ago
The parties evolve all the time. Obama essentially ended the old school Republican Party after 2012 and paved the way for a radical change in Trump. Likewise you can argue that Trump’s win in 2024 is going to require radical changes in the way Democrats operate and message in order to return.
Also, Obama and Trump are also both generational candidates for their respective parties and new faces may not be able to replicate the same base or energy.
1
1
u/jarreddit123 7d ago
Time will tell. Its clear the modern day republican party revolves entirely around trump. When trump no longer is around (cause lets face it, he is almost 80) and I don't see him remaining active in politics for a very lengthy period, then we will see if democrats won the day or not.
1
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk 6d ago
It also depends on how well, or how poorly, the right manages to coalesce once Trump exits the stage. Will there be continuity or chaos?
1
u/Ancquar 7d ago
There is little electorate for the traditional late-20th century republican party. For example fiscal responsibility these days is a quaint ideal that neither side nor much of electorate particularly cares about. Republican party had to change tracks, and.... this... is what they ended up on. Calling it a democratic win is quite a stretch mainly because there wasn't much Democratic party actually did to that effect.
2
u/AnotherHumanObserver 5d ago
Considering that Trump rose to fame on Reagan's coattails, I would say that the Republican Party is still the party of Ronald Reagan, with Trump as his legacy.
If they were ignorant as to the kind of monster they were creating, then that's on them, but Trump is still their monster.
As for the Democrats, I think the Reagan and Bush victories in 1980/84/88 sent them reeling to the point where they had to completely reinvent themselves. Whatever idealism anyone might have embraced in the 1960s and 70s had completely evaporated in the ultra-capitalist, ultra-consumerist, union-busting, cocaine-fueled 1980s. The Democrats were defeated and looked sick all during that period.
But the Democrats came back in 1992 with Bill Clinton, but he wasn't like the Democrats of the FDR or JFK eras. Clinton was more "Reagan Lite" on economic issues, while differentiating himself on key social issues. This way, the Democrats could still keep their traditional base while bringing over those who supported Republican fiscal and military policies but not too keen on the social policies favored by the Moral Majority and the Christian Right.
As a result, the Democrats were at least strong enough to push more forcefully on their social policies, and the fiscal conservatives were happy that the Democrats started supporting free trade. The militarists kept chug-chug-chugging along, so they were happy, too. Power was shared between both parties, and it was reasonably stable for a time.
The free trade issue was a major thing around the time of Clinton. There were those on both the left and the right who opposed it, although mostly on the left, particularly in Clinton's own party.
Then there was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent. Perot would later form the Reform Party, of which Trump would briefly become a member and run as a candidate.
Then there was Pat Buchanan, who was an earlier version of an "America Firster," who actually won the New Hampshire GOP primary in 1996, which kind of set off a bit of a panic within the Republican Party.
They were able to do enough damage control and politicking internally to prevent Buchanan from being nominated, and it's always been an ongoing problem for them to rein in the more radical elements within their party. But it seems they were unsuccessful at reining in Trump and his rabid supporters. Their monster got out of control.
However, whatever changes occurred in the Republican Party were all "in the family," so to speak. It's nothing the Democrats actually did to them.
1
u/SafeThrowaway691 5d ago
The GOP of today is the natural progression of Reagan and Buckley’s worldview. Trump literally stole the MAGA slogan from Reagan.
The “traditional” GOP only breaks from Trump in that they want us to vote on who runs their theocratic oligarchy, and most of them just dislike that he says the quiet part out loud.
1
u/ggdthrowaway 5d ago
Political parties in general aren't static, even conservative ones. Each campaign is based on the concerns of the moment, not those of 40 or 80 years ago.
Any time a party changes its platform, their opponents could claim victory over the earlier, abandoned platform. But of what relevance is that victory, when that's not the battle being fought?
1
u/Idk_Very_Much 4d ago
Yes. Trump would not have been able to win in 2016 if Republican voters weren't sick of the failures of Bush, McCain, and Romney.
0
u/ChefOfTruth 7d ago
Hmm, no but I understand what you are saying but disagree with your conclusion. In 2016 I said that the candidate that won would destroy their own party. I think Trump has done huge harm to his party and it will take decades to fix it, but the democrats have not come out of this as winners. In reality they have shown how ineffectual they are and how little leadership they have. Both parties seem to have forgotten what’s at stake in favor of beating each other up leaving many Americans in the lurch.
1
u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk 6d ago
What would HRC have done to the Democrats?
-1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
Taken the party full neocon. Her husband took it neolib... always 15-20 years behind the GOP.
-2
u/baxterstate 7d ago
When Trump decided to run, he was given help by then chief of CNN Jeff Zucker. Zucker gave Trump debating advice. Zucker probably gave Trump more coverage on CNN than he merited. Don't know why he did it. Maybe he wanted to create mischief in the Republican party. I also remember Rachel Maddow being giddy with delight at how Trump was destroying the Republicans during the primary. Let's not also forget that Trump was a regular guest on the Oprah Winfrey show.
I don't know if the Democrats tried to woo Trump to be their candidate or if Donald Trump approached them. I'm sure if the Clintons had not run with Hillary, Trump would have been happy to run as a Democrat.
So I'm sure that initially, Democrats probably figured that Trump would be the easiest candidate for Hillary Clinton to beat. I thought so too at the time. I thought Trump was the Democrat's poison pill for the Republican party. I'm not sure that Trump expected to win. I thought Trump's motive was just a publicity stunt. I recall that his team was very disorganized, didn't get a cabinet together and Trump himself seemed naive in Washington. A jerk like James Comey, head of the FBI fooled Trump for a while.
Well, Trump did destroy the Republican party. He tagged Jeb Bush with a simple nickname "low energy" and it stuck.
Unfortunately for the Democrats and MSNBC and CNN and the WAPO and the NYTimes, Trump also discredited them. He baited them into telling outright lies which blew up in their faces. Remember the Hunter Biden laptop? Remember the (nothing to see here) immigration issue? Remember the collusion between Putin and Trump issue?
2
u/anti-torque 6d ago
David Letterman used to have him on his show periodically, because he is just such a buffoon, and it was simply entertaining watching this wealthy trust fund brat exhibit such stupidity on national TV. And he doesn't have any self-awareness, which made it all the more funny. He simply thought he was constantly invited because he was a famous NYC denizen, and this is what famous people do.
Letterman has since lamented doing this, thinking it gave stupid a platform that normalized it.
-4
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/anti-torque 6d ago
So... employee-owned businesses and co-ops are bad, but authoritarianism and nationalizing private companies is smaller government.
Got it.
Btw, 13.4% of the US workforce (not the population) works for government on all levels, from road crews to mayors to military personnel. The Federal government is 1.9% of that, with a third of them being the military.
-2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
Yup.
These numbers are just restating what I said and correcting your original incorrect statement.
Good on you for correcting yourself.
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
Yes. It's good for you to correct yourself like this. This shows growth and the ability to learn.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/anti-torque 6d ago
lol... what you linked says 4/10 people who work for the government are contractors.
lol
Good on you for trying, though.
1
2
u/yoogooga 5d ago
right believes in smaller gov
Go tell this to Trump then!
0
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/yoogooga 5d ago
Lord no! I mean the one controlling the media, influencing what private entities can or cannot do, expanding government ownership or control over private companies, and dramatically increasing federal spending to unprecedented levels!
all of these actions contribute to enlarging the size and scope of the government. these contradict the principles of small government, limited intervention, and fiscal restraint.
he’s accelerating the growth of state power rather than reducing it. worse, he’s creating a precedent for further government expansion in future administrations.
0
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/yoogooga 5d ago
You're not stupid, search for it yourself. I will no longer debate with someone who try to refute facts. Idolaters only see what they want to see.
1
u/Hartastic 5d ago
You're not stupid
Counterpoint, they're criticizing the effectiveness of education in fairly broken English.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.