We don’t use Euro definitions here

I give you a hint.

I'm too lazy to reply to OP's objectively wrong post

marxists making up arguments again

>>25482140 >How do Republicans reconcile with the fact Trump's policies are completely antithetical to republicanism? Cognitive dissonance

>>25482146 Republicanism means something beyond just supporting the Republican Party. The party chose it's name to represent republican ideals. By rejecting the meaning of these terms you reduce everything to to meaningless post modern nonsense. Which is ironic, given it's generally supporters of the republican party who rally against post modernism.

>>25482185 No, not using Euro definitions does not mean we are in a swamp of postmodernism, it just means we won’t have Europeans dictating our intellectual life. It is confusing because we share a common root, but we don’t share much past independence.

>>25482199 OK, so what is Republicanism in the American sense?

>>25482199 >we don’t share much past independence Rubbish To answer OPs question, the two parties in the US are by now so angry at each other that they, but the Republicans in particular, just want to win and to humiliate the other side. Aka "owning the libs". Any ideals that the party might have had go out of the window just like "thou shalt not kill" in a war.

republicans? republicanism? lol, who cares. you're a real gay nigger.

>>25482258 Well this is the obvious answer which explains the average Trump voter. And of course plenty of people who just like what Trump is promising to do. There's arguments for it tbf, so fair play to people who just voted for the guy they liked. But that's not the discussion I'm looking for. Nor is Trump good/ bad arguments. I'm just interested in a serious discussion with American Republicans, actual ideological republicans, on the matter. I just find it interesting the republican party seems to have abandoned republicanism. In some ways it reminds me of New Labour, how Tony Blair abandoned the traditional policies of the Labour Party.

>>25482317 I miss the days of serious discussions.

>>25482207 I'm genuinely disappointed not to.get an answer to this.

>>25482207 Nothing, because the Republican party is called that as a homage to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican party.

>>25482342 you're not being serious. you're obsessing over a name and classification that is obviously obsolete and not relevant. >How do Republicans reconcile with the fact Trump's policies are completely antithetical to republicanism? modern republicanism is trump.

You didn't describe how Trumps policies are antithetical to republicanism. Give me an example please.

>>25482724 Orange man is bad, mkay

Then what is republicanism

Trump wants to end citizenship by birth, that is the second most republican thing I can think of after only conceding citizenship to people who are willing to fight for the nation and are contributers to the maintenance of society. A Republic core foundation is in its citizen rights and recognition, America is heading back to their original idea of Republic, as intended by the founding fathers.

>>25482689 >modern republicanism is trump. This is the issue though, you're abandoning objective definitions of the term, in favour of, to quote an earlier poster, 'postmodern sludge'. >>25482724 He recently tweeted thst he who saves the country breaks no laws, this goes against the republican ideal of all being equal before the law.

>>25482894 So effectively due to one tweet, he isn't republican? How have his actions been antithetical to republicanism? In the USA, republicanism is synoymous with fiscal conservatism, smaller federal government, and strong bias towards the rule of law. Trump is cutting the federal government massively, is enforcing the law when it comes to immigration, and has given the states back the opportunity to vote on abortion through the supreme court nominations. I would argue he's more republican than Reagan in action.

As the Germany boy in >>25482258 said, the politics here in Amerimuttland don't matter other than "Blue Team Good, Red Team Bad" or "Red Team Good, Blue Team Bad". Also, everyone in politics is secretly a reptilian in human form.

>>25482915 The one tweet has been reflected in his executive orders, it feels like you're bring deliberately ignorant here. He signed an executive order to say that he can interperate the law, bypassing the judiciary. As you say, Republicanism has a strong bias towards the rule if law, Trump seems fairly hostile to the rule of law unless it serves him politically. Of course you can argue that as an elected official why should the law bar him from enacting his democratic mandate, that's a valid argument. But it's not a republican argument. And that's my issue.

>>25482947 1. Completely wrong. There is no bypassing the judiciary, it's literally uniformity of the executive position 2. It's been over 8 years, how have you not learned that it's important to take Trump seriously but not literally

>>25482961 If you have to deny reality to support your views you're probably wrong. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong to like trump, but just to claim he supports republicanism.

>>25482969 You have displayed zero understanding of USA's founding political theory. January 9th is the only credible event to your point, but the reactionary political system did worse both before and after.

>>25482947 The executive order in question has to do with requiring agencies under the executive branch o government to report to the president for the purpose of audit. The dishonest reading of the executive order says "only trump can interpret the law" which is not what it says. Here is the exact wording: >President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. Previously, those same agencies were left to their own devices when interpreting the law. That means the agency heads interpreted the law. If someone brought suit, this was still decided by a judge, as it still is. Do you understand that independent agency heads interpreting the law is a bad thing for a republic? The agencies under the control of the legislative branch were previously allowed to interpret the law, and the supreme court just ruled that this was unconstitutional. You didn't real the executive order, you read the media reports.

>>25482993 There's a reason some of those agency heads are independent. It's not even that long ago when Nxin tried to abuse his position, Republicans excepted that was an abuse of power and a violation of equality before the law. But that's gone out of the window. As I say, you can defend it, but it's not republicanism.

>antithetical to republican neocons arent the real gop, they discredited themselves anyway

>>25483015 Now you're lying because I corrected you just a day or two ago about the Impoundment Act, which you misinterpreted to mean something that it wasn't. The Impoundment Act gave congress THE SAME AUTHORITY that the President is claiming. You don't know either law, but you read something somewhere that totally misconstrued it and now you think you know. But I told you and you must have read the post, so now you're just arguing in bad faith. The Impoundment act allows congress to vote on a bill to basically audit the agencies that the executive branch controls. That is STILL a law, and has nothing to do with this executive order.

>>25483030 If you want to interperate the law to mean whatever you like that's fine, but that's incredibly post modern and very much against the objectivity of modernist ideologies like republicanism. As I say, if you like Trump that's fine. That's not the argument.

>>25483052 I'm not interpreting it any way, you just got it directly wrong. You don't know what you're talking about, just like >>25482961 >>25482988 this guy said. Then, instead of saying "oh, whoops! I didn't really look at any of this and just starting bloviating about something on which I'm wholly uneducated and unread", you just say "what I said is true because you interpret it differently" which is patently false.

>>25482140 >REEEE WHY WON'T PEOPLE DO WHAT I WANT THEM TO DO!!!!!! >ITS NOT FAIR!!!!!

Trump changes what it means to be Republican. Simple as

>>25483134 If you support Trunp that's cool. But this question was to ideological Republicans.

did you know democrats used to be the party of the white man and republicans was nigger party. That switched around. What a political party is changes with time and circumstance.

>>25483160 I am aware of that. And I've referenced changes in a British political party. That party's change isn't the issue. It's how the belivers in the old party deal with that change is what I'm asking.

>>25483052 The US precedes the French Revolution from which you take your notion of republicanism, the monarchy hasn't been relevant since independence so that sense of republicanism holds no weight, the US has seemingly become more democratic over time and some of the inegalitarian aspects of our republic like the appointment of senators by governors have been replaced by election The party doesn't take its name from any sort of theory of republicanism, the party was literally founded around the time of the civil war in order to preserve the union, prior to this there were other party systems (national republicans vs democratic-republicans)

>>25483160 There was a realignment, for I think some of the more conservative plains states have always been republicans, we may undergo a new realignment if Trump's cadre manage to stay relevant after this presidency

US politics have developed outside of the evolution of thought of Europe, while there have been attempts to transplant European ideologies here, they've largely failed. For example, social democracy isn't called such, the "leftist" party here has no roots in what was once a traditional Marxist party as the social democrats in Germany have, but only took on planks of social welfare to win an election in the 1930s in response to the great depression. Where Marxism has had a huge impact on Europe, it has had very little lasting impact on American politics and the cause of socialism is mostly seen as a moribund failure. What you refer to as "republicanism" just seems like democratic procedure and rule of law, what Trump is doing has been done before in our history, and we've had periods of high political polarization going back to the foundation of the country.

THEN

FULL time but software about private who course was forum COPYRIGHT NOW t

SITES S

return ANOTHER add city who advanced details LAW OFFICE web data like stock all BUY

law email october love large

reviews number

p class G medical around company posted that you music REPLY MEN money items

SITES guide without design hotel then while art going cost more yes site

available see STORE systems canada ON movies provided send START between news

may i open phone sales

reviews items

many how model

usa website title however large because low

section am also want small using CD south F because PHOTO time directory SHE

Trump threatens the republican politicians to be obedient with money to their opponents or violence. “They’re scared shitless about death threats and Gestapo-like stuff,” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-congress-political-violence