The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Cookie_]

DINO is objectively cooler.

So... here are some examples of what I am talking about. You're saying this has always been this way, for decades (assuming), and the only reason we are aware of it is... social media gives us more access to the information?

Leave the democrats? You're a russian catspaw, regardless of your service.
Stray from the party lines on foreign wars? Get your house burned down.
Come from the single most connected family to the democrats in America, leave the party to fight for health of kids? Years of character assassinations.
Align yourself with the right after being celebrated by the entire left wing? Become the target of nationwide domestic terror attacks.
And of course... if you're a democrat that was loved by the entire gelatinous blob that is the democrat/media machine for decades, leave the party and then run for President as a republican- you're literally Hitler and they'll try to blow your head off on CNN live TV.

And the right will... uh, make some memes and get real mad on podcasts, I guess?

The last R-D switch of any consequence in the last 20 years was Charlie Crist in Florida, where he eventually got smoked by DeSantis and left politics. There was barely a ripple on the right. So how is this "always been this way"?

I don't have time to link things, so forgive me if I'm not as detailed as your are.

The first thing time I saw "RINO" was in 2008 when McCain refused to call Obama a secret Muslim. It pops up pretty commonly even now, though it's pretty accurate to say it's only "Boomers" that really use it now. It was pretty commonly used for anybody who opposed Trump during his 1st term/second run, but aside from the Cheneys not so common anymore.

The larger messaging that the party wants you to take on is a "wide tent MAGA movement" that will live on after Trump. That's the party line, exactly the opposite of calling everyone you don't like a RINO establishment shill. It's passe.

Good point, MAGA is a big tent.

If you're Republican but not MAGA, what is that? Are they still part of the party, or are "RINOs"?

That's not a "gotcha" question or anything, interested in your perspective on it.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Oh look- domestic terrorism. Organized, funded, supported and cheered by the left.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

I feel like there was more effective Policing in the Police Academy movies.

 

[757]

Good point, MAGA is a big tent.

If you're Republican but not MAGA, what is that? Are they still part of the party, or are "RINOs"?

That's not a "gotcha" question or anything, interested in your perspective on it.

My initial thought is that MAGA is really just believing in the perceived "ideals" of Trump.

Within the "deals" of the Trump train of thought, I believe there lies A LOT of ambiguity, but some core characteristics are:
1) Anti-Orthodox. The established norms are not held sacrosanct.
2) American Nationalist. The MAGA sphere involves both Civic and Ethnic Nationalists.
3) Capitalist. This involves both traditional and Neo-Capitalists.

-I would say all Republicans are Capitalists or Neo-Capitalists. So that checks off that box.

-Most are Nationalists, tho some have some globalists tendencies due to their own self-interests, which begins the slippery slope into RINO land. One thing is for sure, there are approximately zero communists or anarchists in the MAGA-verse.

-Orthodoxy seems to be the biggest point of contention, as a lot of Conservative minded individuals are...well...conservative. They don't tend to like change for changes sake. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The perceived "moral high ground" is a great example of the David Frenche's of the world trying to hold on to an old vestige or what the Republican party used to be.

To continue on the Orthodoxy topic, I think you could also divide MAGA vs. non-MAGA Republicans on whether or not they prioritize results vs. principle. MAGA REALLY likes to win. How they achieve that is far less important than actually winning. It's very Machiavellian by nature. Those who are more ok with losing as long as they "played the right way" tend to avoid being under the MAGA umbrella. They exist, but I think that's a critical divide that really separates the wheat from the chaff.

TLDR: I think the vast majority of Republicans who resist Trump and would self-separate from the MAGA label tend to be more tethered to how the US has been. DC may be a swamp, but hey...like Shrek..."it's my swamp."
-Mitch McConnell (probably)

What you will find in MAGA are:
1) Isolationists and Hawks
2) Free Trade and Protectionists
3) Racists and the "color-blind"
4) Rich and Poor
5) Small government and Big government
6) religious and non-religious
7) Young and Old

MAGA is really like nothing we've seen before and I do think it is the dawning of a new age, both domestically and globally.

 

[amlove21]

I don't have time to link things, so forgive me if I'm not as detailed as your are.

The first thing time I saw "RINO" was in 2008 when McCain refused to call Obama a secret Muslim. It pops up pretty commonly even now, though it's pretty accurate to say it's only "Boomers" that really use it now. It was pretty commonly used for anybody who opposed Trump during his 1st term/second run, but aside from the Cheneys not so common anymore.



Good point, MAGA is a big tent.

If you're Republican but not MAGA, what is that? Are they still part of the party, or are "RINOs"?

That's not a "gotcha" question or anything, interested in your perspective on it.

Yeah, it's really just sort of fallen out of favor. It can still be useful to describe someone in shorthand, like if you said "This person is a RINO," I would get exactly what you mean. The zeitgeist just used it too much, and everyone sort of moved on, I guess? I am not sure if there is even a replacement word for it. If you have an R next to your name but fail to meet the morality test de rigueur- poof. You're a RINO. Which is SUPER weird, because depending on what person from what faction or what allegiance is leveling the claim, it's a moving target. Which naturally transitions into...

...your bolded. It is a great question, and useful for explanation. I knew it wasn't a gotcha. I'll try to be as concise as possible. This is just my read of the tribes.

- There are rank and file folks, usually skews a bit older, that are just "republicans". Standard boiler plate republican values, the tropes. Watches Fox News, thinks Tucker was too edgy but liked his bowtie, live and let live crowd. Squishy on issues that true conservatives value. Would get called RINO. Brian Fitzpatrick is one of these people. Votes juuuuuust this side of democrat. Like a 35% freedom score.

- TrumpWorldMAGA is an entirely different animal. These folks "follow the plan", think DJT is a savior, he can do no wrong, COVFEFE meant something real, 7d chess. Watch only Bongino (RIP), Jesse Waters is the only good Fox Guy left, Newsmaxx. Uses the word "Libtard" unironically. MTG. Matt Gaetz. Just 100% Trump loyalists. I think people think Nancy Mace fits here, but I think she actually fits in the last category, but she popped into mind. Put a pin in it.

- Normal MAGA want to MAGA, but these are the majority of folks that have evolved past the first category but cant deal with the fringe TWMAGA folks. Normal MAGA would have been republicans that we would have actually called hard-line conservatives before the evolution of TWMAGA and the Trump phenomenon. Would call the rank and file republicans squishy RINOs. Anna Paulina Luna, Byron Donalds, Jim Jordan... MAGA. They go hard here and there but don't rise to retarded level, but the party is MAGA at this point, and if you want to be anywhere near relevant, you gotta be MAGA.

- MAHA is really interesting- it's every based chick in the country that isn't a liberal white woman werido in the age group of 35-65. They all coalesced to sort of align with Normal MAGA and were a huge reason Trump won the last election. I just mention them because of their big space in the overall architecture at the moment. That alliance is crazy.

- And then there are conservatives. These are closest to like, old school Liberals. Not what that word means today, but like Rand Paul, Thomas Massie sort of folks that don't align well to any of the above enough to get lumped in those groups. Too averse to using military for everything, not supportive of big government, totally willing to vote on the actual principles as opposed to party lines. There just aren't a lot of them. The antonytm to these folks on the left would be Ro Khanna. Ro is essentially the bizarro version of Rand Paul. It's weird. I think Nany Mace best fits here as well- high freedom score, firebrand without being retarded.

So, anyway, that's my opinion. The folks that come over from the other side of the fence (Jillian Michaels and Dave Rubin are great examples) usually end up in the Normal MAGA camp, very rarely do they go full on TWMAGA (although Antonio Brown 100% did, thanks CTE).

 

[amlove21]

My initial thought is that MAGA is really just believing in the perceived "ideals" of Trump.

Within the "deals" of the Trump train of thought, I believe there lies A LOT of ambiguity, but some core characteristics are:
1) Anti-Orthodox. The established norms are not held sacrosanct.
2) American Nationalist. The MAGA sphere involves both Civic and Ethnic Nationalists.
3) Capitalist. This involves both traditional and Neo-Capitalists.

-I would say all Republicans are Capitalists or Neo-Capitalists. So that checks off that box.

-Most are Nationalists, tho some have some globalists tendencies due to their own self-interests, which begins the slippery slope into RINO land. One thing is for sure, there are approximately zero communists or anarchists in the MAGA-verse.

-Orthodoxy seems to be the biggest point of contention, as a lot of Conservative minded individuals are...well...conservative. They don't tend to like change for changes sake. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The perceived "moral high ground" is a great example of the David Frenche's of the world trying to hold on to an old vestige or what the Republican party used to be.

To continue on the Orthodoxy topic, I think you could also divide MAGA vs. non-MAGA Republicans on whether or not they prioritize results vs. principle. MAGA REALLY likes to win. How they achieve that is far less important than actually winning. It's very Machiavellian by nature. Those who are more ok with losing as long as they "played the right way" tend to avoid being under the MAGA umbrella. They exist, but I think that's a critical divide that really separates the wheat from the chaff.

TLDR: I think the vast majority of Republicans who resist Trump and would self-separate from the MAGA label tend to be more tethered to how the US has been. DC may be a swamp, but hey...like Shrek..."it's my swamp."
-Mitch McConnell (probably)

What you will find in MAGA are:
1) Isolationists and Hawks
2) Free Trade and Protectionists
3) Racists and the "color-blind"
4) Rich and Poor
5) Small government and Big government
6) religious and non-religious
7) Young and Old

MAGA is really like nothing we've seen before and I do think it is the dawning of a new age, both domestically and globally.

This was great.

@Cookie_ take his post, combine it with my post and poof- that's probably the most comprehensive "what exactly is MAGA" post on these pages.

Again, Great job there @757

 

[Topkick]

But RINO is a simple and useful acronym. If you vote against the republican presidential candidate, you're a RINO. I hope those days are over, just like Liz Cheney's career.

 

[amlove21]

But RINO is a simple and useful acronym. If you vote against the republican presidential candidate, you're a RINO. I hope those days are over, just like Liz Cheney's career.

Lol yeah no one is saying it isn't useful, it's just sort of outdated and doesn't hold meaning anymore. Folks that only voted for Trump (and neglected to vote down ballot Republican because they only like Trump) would call people that didn't vote for Trump but voted down ballot R for everyone else "RINOs".

It just became a term Trump used for people that didn't agree with him. Cheney is a great example.

 

[ThunderHorse]

So, when will the media hold themselves accountable for carrying water of the last administration...like Haley, I'm glad you are reading the reports and all...but this was a bad idea and you cheered it on then.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919771290434502817

Good point, MAGA is a big tent.

If you're Republican but not MAGA, what is that? Are they still part of the party, or are "RINOs"?

That's not a "gotcha" question or anything, interested in your perspective on it.

What does this even mean? If you're a Republican, the Left looks at you automatically with disgust and calls you MAGA. It doesn't matter. The left made the decision for the Republicans here, time to get in lockstep and oppose their ideology.

MAGA is just Tea Party 3.0. Paul Ryan failed so he's anti-MAGA. He wants to make himself look like a saint because he doesn't use twitter. But, like the whole purpose of the Tea Party Republicans was to take out the trash in DC.

 

[Topkick]

just became a term Trump used for people that didn't agree with him. Cheney is a great example.

Cheney was treasonous, far beyond RINO. You may not agree with a candidate, but on election day, do your values align with the Democrat nomimee more than with the nominee of your own party? If so...yooooouuu might be a RINO.

 

[amlove21]

Cheney was treasonous, far beyond RINO. You may not agree with a candidate, but on election day, do your values align with the Democrat nomimee more than with the nominee of your own party? If so...yooooouuu might be a RINO.

And yooooou might be a boomer. Is that a fucking Jeff Foxworthy joke along with a RINO joke!? -1!!!

 

[Topkick]

And yooooou might be a boomer. Is that a fucking Jeff Foxworthy joke along with a RINO joke!? -1!!!

Technically I'm Gen x, but proudly an old soul. Impressed with how you picked up on the Foxworthy joke so quickly.

 

[amlove21]

...If you're a Republican, the Left looks at you automatically with disgust and calls you MAGA. It doesn't matter. The left made the decision for the Republicans here, time to get in lockstep and oppose their ideology.

MAGA is just Tea Party 3.0. Paul Ryan failed so he's anti-MAGA. He wants to make himself look like a saint because he doesn't use twitter. But, like the whole purpose of the Tea Party Republicans was to take out the trash in DC.

Well this is a fun little wrinkle. This is how the left characterizes it- I would be happy to show you the unhinged comments on my IG from the party of tolerance- all the hits. I won't bore you. Anyway, because I am a conservative, I get it all. The. Time.

"You just love Trump! You think everything he does is right. You support Project 2025! You believe X! You must believe Y and you don't support Z!!!"

I am none of those things. I register republican, I don't align with the party unless the principles of the party align with my principles and get me the desired outcome I want, and even that is by person/exception. My going-in stance is "these people are all liars and we are adversaries. All of them." I don't worship any man and certainly not any politicians. If DJT just somehow became irrelevant tomorrow and left the political space, I wouldn't care. On to the next guy, as long as he's doing things that align with my values and principles, which are non-negotiable.

If you have ideas or principles that are antithetical to the morals and ideals set forth for this country, that build her up- I will mercilessly mock you and shame you and call out our ideals. I do not care what you say in return. I care what the people watching you think. I want them to see a good idea, one that protects Americans and America, and I want them to see an unhinged, unsupported lunatic rant and rave about something they made up in their head to be true.

Watching people try to figure that position out is hilarious because PEOPLE NEVER ASK. It's crazy, but people (even here) never bother to go, "hey you said this thing or shared a video, what were you getting at?". They just jump right to "You're a TWMAGA guy!" (or whatever slur).

 

[Cookie_]

@757 and @amlove21 appreciate the detailed responses!

I think you could also divide MAGA vs. non-MAGA Republicans on whether or not they prioritize results vs. principle. MAGA REALLY likes to win. How they achieve that is far less important than actually winning. It's very Machiavellian by nature. Those who are more ok with losing as long as they "played the right way" tend to avoid being under the MAGA umbrella. They exist, but I think that's a critical divide that really separates the wheat from the chaff.

I think you're spot on with this way of looking at it. It's one of those things where I can't say I've ever thought of it like this, but reading it I immediately can see how it'd be applicable.

MAHA is really interesting- it's every based chick in the country that isn't a liberal white woman werido in the age group of 35-65. They all coalesced to sort of align with Normal MAGA and were a huge reason Trump won the last election. I just mention them because of their big space in the overall architecture at the moment. That alliance is crazy.

MAHA is a fun one, because it seems like it may be a very fickle group, not necessarily political. This group could become political, but overwhelmingly they remind me as the "health" version of occupy kids.

There just aren't a lot of them. The antonytm to these folks on the left would be Ro Khanna. Ro is essentially the bizarro version of Rand Paul.

I don't think I've ever heard Ro Khanna compared to Rand Paul, but I can understand what you're saying. Ro is (in my opinion) a good example of what Progressives should be focused on. I'd like the Dems to have more like him.

What does this even mean? If you're a Republican, the Left looks at you automatically with disgust and calls you MAGA. It doesn't matter. The left made the decision for the Republicans here, time to get in lockstep and oppose their ideology.

The question is because I don't care what "the left" thinks of what belongs in MAGA. MAGA is overwhelming conservative, so I'm interested in how someone on that side views things.

Hasan Piker, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Eric Adams all might be "leftists" if asking the average person on the right, but if you wanted to know how people on the left viewed "progressive left" you ask someone from that group, not *insert right wing commentator*.