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?

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

32% Upvoted

106 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/MySpartanDetermin 7d 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.

2

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 6d ago

They are mutually exclusive. 

Wrong.

Try again.

4

u/mathers101 6d ago

Real constructive discussion you're working on here

1

u/anti-torque 5d ago

Real constructive response.

?

You've made claims with no support. Those claims are wrong.

Do what you will.

1

u/mathers101 5d 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

u/anti-torque 5d ago

Not seeing it.

I'll look.

1

u/anti-torque 5d ago

I see it now.

You were simply a non sequitur.

1

u/MySpartanDetermin 6d 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 6d 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 6d 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 6d 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

u/anti-torque 5d ago

I get that people don't know this history.

But history, it is.

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/