MAGA/TPUSA/Far Right coalition splintering | 2A rights

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 408
  • Views: 14K
  • Politics 
BillOfRights said:
Can someone explain to me what he’s trying to say?
Click to expand...
While @lawtig02 is correct in his pithy reply, I think Lindsay is trying to make a large point that's important to understand.

He believes that there is a majority of Republicans (that he considers "sober minded conservatives") who want government to be doing certain things that are being undermined by the corruption of the Trump admin and all of the grifters and influencers surrounding it. He wants Trump to rise above being a stupid troll and get serious about instituting a fascist government that prioritizes Trump's base (white, male, cisgender, heterosexual, Christian, etc) above all other in our country.

The reason it's difficult to grasp is because it's seemingly based so deeply in bullshit that it's essentially unrecognizable to those of us living in reality.

For context, Lindsay thinks that MAGA is "generally conservative but not right-wing".

So he wants Trump to get serious about creating long-term change and to stop doing all the idiotic actions and corrupt grifting that he believes keeps Trump from doing these things. He also sees the coming backlash to Trump because of the effects Trump has had on the economy and the basic stability of our country and he wants to head off Republicans/conservatives taking the blame for all of it. He recognizes that Trump has been horrible for our country and that voters are going to increasingly hold Republicans accountable (for at least a period) for Trump and his administration; he wants to head off that as much as possible by blaming Trump and the "woke Right" (which he uses unironically) for the failings of the Trump admin rather than the right as a whole. He's also very well aware that Trump has opened Pandora's Box if/when a Dem gets the WH again as nearly all of the old guardrails are gone on presidential power and there's little that would restrain a Dem President if he or she decided to go as far on liberal/left-wing goals as Trump has on right-wing ones and he's terrified of this happening, so he's trying to get Trump to work harder on addressing these problems rather than Trump's more natural ranting and raving and grifting and dumbassery.

I think we're likely to see more of this as we approach midterms and beyond, as Trump's allotted time in office passes and Republicans have to look toward a post-Trump (non-)reality. The question of how the country moves on from an administration as corrupt and trollish and just plain stupid as Trump's likely means some hard times for Republicans (unless Trump is successful in either ending fair and free elections or overcoming the 22nd Amendment) and this guy is putting forth a path that tries to portray the worst of the Trump admin as an "anomaly" so as to try to limit the backlash to the Republican Party.
 
SnoopRob said:
While @lawtig02 is correct in his pithy reply, I think Lindsay is trying to make a large point that's important to understand.

He believes that there is a majority of Republicans (that he considers "sober minded conservatives") who want government to be doing certain things that are being undermined by the corruption of the Trump admin and all of the grifters and influencers surrounding it. He wants Trump to rise above being a stupid troll and get serious about instituting a fascist government that prioritizes Trump's base (white, male, cisgender, heterosexual, Christian, etc) above all other in our country.

The reason it's difficult to grasp is because it's seemingly based so deeply in bullshit that it's essentially unrecognizable to those of us living in reality.

For context, Lindsay thinks that MAGA is "generally conservative but not right-wing".

So he wants Trump to get serious about creating long-term change and to stop doing all the idiotic actions and corrupt grifting that he believes keeps Trump from doing these things. He also sees the coming backlash to Trump because of the effects Trump has had on the economy and the basic stability of our country and he wants to head off Republicans/conservatives taking the blame for all of it. He recognizes that Trump has been horrible for our country and that voters are going to increasingly hold Republicans accountable (for at least a period) for Trump and his administration; he wants to head off that as much as possible by blaming Trump and the "woke Right" (which he uses unironically) for the failings of the Trump admin rather than the right as a whole. He's also very well aware that Trump has opened Pandora's Box if/when a Dem gets the WH again as nearly all of the old guardrails are gone on presidential power and there's little that would restrain a Dem President if he or she decided to go as far on liberal/left-wing goals as Trump has on right-wing ones and he's terrified of this happening, so he's trying to get Trump to work harder on addressing these problems rather than Trump's more natural ranting and raving and grifting and dumbassery.

I think we're likely to see more of this as we approach midterms and beyond, as Trump's allotted time in office passes and Republicans have to look toward a post-Trump (non-)reality. The question of how the country moves on from an administration as corrupt and trollish and just plain stupid as Trump's likely means some hard times for Republicans (unless Trump is successful in either ending fair and free elections or overcoming the 22nd Amendment) and this guy is putting forth a path that tries to portray the worst of the Trump admin as an "anomaly" so as to try to limit the backlash to the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I've gotten lost, but I think it's important that we understand the dynamics here. Is it fair to think of the American electorate as 35% solid or leans D, 35% solid or leans R in some form, and 30% independent/swing voter/low-information-anti-incumbent? Adjust those as you see fit.

Of the 35% R, how would you break down:
Never-trumpers
Establishment Rs
MAGA
Far-right
alt-right
Neo-fascists
Woke right

Are some of these subgroups of the others?

Is there overlap?

Can you give me a couple of examples of each?
Where do Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, fox news, this Lindsay guy, House Republicans, Senate Republicans fit in?

Is Marjorie Taylor Greene a shape shifter?
 
BillOfRights said:
Thank you.

I've gotten lost, but I think it's important that we understand the dynamics here. Is it fair to think of the American electorate as 35% solid or leans D, 35% solid or leans R in some form, and 30% independent/swing voter/low-information-anti-incumbent? Adjust those as you see fit.

Of the 35% R, how would you break down:
Never-trumpers
Establishment Rs
MAGA
Far-right
alt-right
Neo-fascists
Woke right

Are some of these subgroups of the others?

Is there overlap?

Can you give me a couple of examples of each?
Where do Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, fox news, this Lindsay guy, House Republicans, Senate Republicans fit in?

Is Marjorie Taylor Greene a shape shifter?
Click to expand...
I'm just gonna start with the caveat that a lot of these "groups" are merely terms/insults that different Republicans toss at each other. Are there folks that inhabit those groups? Sure. Do many of the folks in those groups actually claim those titles? No.

Never-Trumpers: These are the folks who came out publicly against Trump and most have been removed from the party altogether. Maybe 1% of the electorate. The best examples are the folks from the Lincoln Project and Meidas Touch.

Establishment Rs: These are the folks leading the party and/or the ones who believe in some sort of actual governance from the party. There are very, very few of these folks left and even the party leadership has bent the knee to Trump. Among the rank-and-file Pubs, a lot of these folks have become Dem-leaning independents. Among those still in the party, you could likely find a few left among Senate Pubs and even fewer among House Pubs, but most have either retired or are hiding to avoid detection. This is much more a term that gets used as an insult by MAGA or those even further to the right toward elected Pubs who believe the party should someday actually try to govern or don't troll at every possible opportunity.

MAGA: These are the rank-and-file Pubs now in the party. In 2016, this was probably no more than 10% of the electorate (out of the Pubs' 35%), but now pretty much everyone still in the party is either MAGA or have willingly given in to MAGA. Trump is obviously the leader and the most recognizable MAGA elected folks are MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, etc. But, at this point, essentially the entire Republican Party is MAGA or have given over all power to MAGA.

From here it gets really, really tricky to parse out groups. In a lot of ways, the remaining terms are really describing the same set of folks, although there are small differences between them. And, we have to remember, what was the "far right" 10 years ago is now pretty much the mainstream of the Republican Party.

The Far Right/Alt-Right: 10+ years ago, these were folks at the rightward margin of the Republican Party as your fairly open Christian Nationalists, antisemites, racists, bigots. These folks have essentially taken over the party under Trump. Pre-Trump, I would have said this group was realistically no more than 5% of the electorate, although I would have said a significant portion of the Republican Party had no issue dog-whistling to them. Now the party has sold out to them and the bulk of the party has (publicly) adopted their views. Those who you can safely put in this group are Nick Fuentes, the Proud Boys, Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Richard Spencer. But many who have the same beliefs but never took on the term are now the core of the Trump administration.

Neo-fascists: There are very few within the Republican Party who openly call themselves neo-fascists. But given that the party is now wholly fascist, the term applies even if the bulk of those within the party deny the term. For the few who do own the term, they are largely marginalized for saying the quiet parts out loud.

Woke Right: A term of derision that those in the current mainstream of the Republican Party use to negatively label some of those who are on the rightward wing of the party and who are vocal about trying to pull the party even more rightward. However, essenitally no one with the party actually claims the title for themselves and it's essentially a term like "RINO" that is used to smear others based on internecine fighting.

As to where to put specific people within the party, the truth is that all of them at this point are either fascists or fascist-adjacent and none of the folks you mentioned would accept that truth. All of them essentially think of themselves as "mainstream conservatives" who are merely putting forth a "conservative" perspective. From all of those that you mentioned, Tucker Carlson is probably more unhinged than the rest and the Senate Republicans are likely a little more restrained than the rest, although all have essentially gone all-in on fascism under Trump.

MTG is fucking nuts and that's about the only reasonable thing you can say about her.
 
SnoopRob said:
I'm just gonna start with the caveat that a lot of these "groups" are merely terms/insults that different Republicans toss at each other. Are there folks that inhabit those groups? Sure. Do many of the folks in those groups actually claim those titles? No.

Never-Trumpers: These are the folks who came out publicly against Trump and most have been removed from the party altogether. Maybe 1% of the electorate. The best examples are the folks from the Lincoln Project and Meidas Touch.

Establishment Rs: These are the folks leading the party and/or the ones who believe in some sort of actual governance from the party. There are very, very few of these folks left and even the party leadership has bent the knee to Trump. Among the rank-and-file Pubs, a lot of these folks have become Dem-leaning independents. Among those still in the party, you could likely find a few left among Senate Pubs and even fewer among House Pubs, but most have either retired or are hiding to avoid detection. This is much more a term that gets used as an insult by MAGA or those even further to the right toward elected Pubs who believe the party should someday actually try to govern or don't troll at every possible opportunity.

MAGA: These are the rank-and-file Pubs now in the party. In 2016, this was probably no more than 10% of the electorate (out of the Pubs' 35%), but now pretty much everyone still in the party is either MAGA or have willingly given in to MAGA. Trump is obviously the leader and the most recognizable MAGA elected folks are MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, etc. But, at this point, essentially the entire Republican Party is MAGA or have given over all power to MAGA.

From here it gets really, really tricky to parse out groups. In a lot of ways, the remaining terms are really describing the same set of folks, although there are small differences between them. And, we have to remember, what was the "far right" 10 years ago is now pretty much the mainstream of the Republican Party.

The Far Right/Alt-Right: 10+ years ago, these were folks at the rightward margin of the Republican Party as your fairly open Christian Nationalists, antisemites, racists, bigots. These folks have essentially taken over the party under Trump. Pre-Trump, I would have said this group was realistically no more than 5% of the electorate, although I would have said a significant portion of the Republican Party had no issue dog-whistling to them. Now the party has sold out to them and the bulk of the party has (publicly) adopted their views. Those who you can safely put in this group are Nick Fuentes, the Proud Boys, Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Richard Spencer. But many who have the same beliefs but never took on the term are now the core of the Trump administration.

Neo-fascists: There are very few within the Republican Party who openly call themselves neo-fascists. But given that the party is now wholly fascist, the term applies even if the bulk of those within the party deny the term. For the few who do own the term, they are largely marginalized for saying the quiet parts out loud.

Woke Right: A term of derision that those in the current mainstream of the Republican Party use to negatively label some of those who are on the rightward wing of the party and who are vocal about trying to pull the party even more rightward. However, essenitally no one with the party actually claims the title for themselves and it's essentially a term like "RINO" that is used to smear others based on internecine fighting.

As to where to put specific people within the party, the truth is that all of them at this point are either fascists or fascist-adjacent and none of the folks you mentioned would accept that truth. All of them essentially think of themselves as "mainstream conservatives" who are merely putting forth a "conservative" perspective. From all of those that you mentioned, Tucker Carlson is probably more unhinged than the rest and the Senate Republicans are likely a little more restrained than the rest, although all have essentially gone all-in on fascism under Trump.

MTG is fucking nuts and that's about the only reasonable thing you can say about her.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to write all that. Your descriptions seem to line up with mind limited understanding of the groups, and that provides some clarity.
 

Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican eyeing a 2028 White House run, torched Vice President Vance and ridiculed President Trump's tariff policy during private meetings with donors, according to recordings obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: Cruz's rebukes, during two meetings last year, are some of the harshest criticisms of Trump and Vance by a fellow Republican since they took office a year ago.

The recordings — nearly 10 minutes in total — provide an unvarnished look at how Cruz is positioning himself as a traditional free trade, pro-interventionist Republican ahead of a possible 2028 primary campaign against the less hawkish Vance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top