It didn't cost Trump anything. He looked at a landscape of candidates that couldn't get over Bush-era policies being rejected by Americans and grabbed the reigns. Some of the old guard hate him for it and others are happy enough to go along for the ride as long as they can continue to enrich themselves. Trump is the end result of our voting system that requires parties to realign themselves to get past the post. In many ways he looks a lot like a Democrat from the 60s, but it doesn't matter what he is as lo

That's not fair. I met an anti-Trump Republican once. You don't know him, though: he's Canadian. We met at Niagara Falls this summer.

Dude, pick up a book and learn what "communism" actually is. You look retarded right now.

> Right.. Because every person who identifies with the Republican Party is a Trumpist...

It's almost entirely true in the public sphere. To succeed in the modern Republican party (at least on the national level) you've gotta bend the knee.

Trump hasnt faced any form of meaningful opposition for any of the radical changes he's made in the party, especially this time around. There was a small handful of objectors but most of those have been driven from national politics by now. Those Republicans that don't support Trump are sadly irrelevant now as they have no meaningful representation of their ow

Perhaps less flippantly, what do you call someone who, allegedly reluctantly, votes for mandatory human/goat orgies, or votes for other politicians who themselves will, allegedly reluctantly, vote for mandatory human/goat orgies? Because I'd sure as a wang up a goat's ass call them mandatory-human/goat-orgyists.

I'd probably abbreviate after a while.

What you "like" or don't like doesn't matter or even what you call yourself, only how you VOTE.

There's not much difference between the person who enthusiastically voted for Trump or who scorned his lies, hypocrisy, cruelty, etc but held his nose & voted for him anyway - both of them contributed equally to handing the reins of power back to him

> On this side, we actually tolerate diversity of thought.

No you absolutely do not, or rather, Republicans are smart in that they tolerate diversity of thought so long as you support Trump .

Don't believe me? Look at what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse when he dared to suggest he might vote Libertarian because he didn't like Trump's stance on guns. He was faced with total expulsion and derision from the party until he fell in line. Pretty much every conservative media figure online was out for blood until he knew his place.

If anything Democrats can learn from that, we actually allow a the groups inside the party to rag the party from the inside and don't force them to vote. The whole "Uncommitted" movement in 2024, Republicans would not have stood for that.

If you want to be a part of the GOP today you have to be 110% in support of everything Trump does or GTFO. Don't be afraid to own that, it works.

I'll engage... I'll start by saying you're right, there's variations in the ranks of the Republicans, just like there are variations in the Dems, or any other group. There are definitely Republicans who would have preferred Trump was not the nominee.

With that said, you like Trump, and presumably voted for him. What do you think of the government buying (at least portions) of American companies, and exerting what appears to be coercion on those companies? How does that fit in with the traditional Republican viewpoint, focusing on small government and a capitalist economy?

What's your take on fascism? Google's definition: Fascism is a far-right, ultranationalist, authoritarian political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized power, forcible suppression of opposition, militarism, and the subordination of individual interests to the state or nation. It rejects liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, and is often marked by scapegoating, a fixation on national decline, and a glorification of violence to serve the state . Under economic control, it says: A system of strong state control over the economy, often described as "corporatism," where private ownership exists but is subordinated to the national interest .

Personally, I have nothing against Trump voters, as individuals, as people. I just cannot understand how they can be ok with the latest policies and where we're going as a country. If the vision is a capitalist haven with minimal intrusion from government, that's not my jam but I can understand it. A full fascist state with a cult of personality? Fuck no.

The GOP made Dubya disappear pretty quickly. I don't think he was in attendance at the RNC after his 2nd term ended nor was he mentioned.

They'll rely on the terrible short-term memory of the voters & will try to make all of this seem like ancient history.

Will it work? I really don't know.

The CHIPS Acts was passed by Congress and Signed by Biden with the intent of boosting U.S. semiconductor and high-tech manufacturing, strengthening domestic supply chains, and enhancing national security, thereby keeping critical technology production on U.S. soil. The act provides nearly $53 billion in funding for semiconductor manufacturing, research, and development, alongside investments in other critical technology areas like artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Buying stakes in US companies and putting the administration into the position to create winners of losers was not part of it

Trump is STEALING from all Americans in order to create power and profits for a small group that is writing his game plan

Again I would suggest that anybody interested in living in a Democracy should read up on the Heritage Foundation and their Project 2025 that trump is following

Why? He's wrong, Heritage doesn't like this buyout. Links posted above in two separate posts. Cato doesn't either. None of the libertarian/pseudo-libertarian groups like it.

I think I agree completely, although they are the only US chipmaker.that manufactures chips 'close' to the state of the art and it would probably be better for the US if they could be made to actually invest in their own technology instead of primarily focusing on profitability.

> The government shouldn't be spending tax payer money on this, but as badly managed as Intel has been for years now I'm not certain that the government could screw them up any worse.

A government that's dedicated solely to extracting as much money from the U.S. economy and awarding it as gifts to loyalist oligarchs couldn't screw up a corporation worse than it already is? Ye of little faith.