Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Calling republicans far right is the exact rhetoric that alienates and divides people. Take the next four years to try to find some common ground with the right.
Not at all wanting to be confrontational- genuinely curious; if they’re not on the far right then where are they? The Democrats seem fairly centrist, and it’s the more wayward independents (eg Greens) that seem to be on the Left.

My perspective is European & Australian, so I wonder if that skews it.

They are absolutely far right, they just hate it when you call them that.
Because it’s illogical. Far right implies there is an edge to a majority “right”. Calling the entire majority “far right” is just lazy adhominem attacks. Calling the entire the democrat party far left is equally stupid.
> Because it’s illogical. Far right implies there is an edge to a majority “right”.

"far right" and "far left" are terms for contextualizing a political stance, based on the world view and actions. It's doesn't matter where the majority of people stands, they can be all far right or far left or in the center, it wouldn't change the definitions.

In America you generally only see "Far X" used as a slur to basically imply extremism. I'm sure a lot of people will have strong feelings about whether that's accurate or not but my point is mainly that I think it's weird when people in places like Europe go by the academic definition with regard to American politics.
No, they’re relative terms. “Far right” doesn’t mean anything in a vacuum.
The nazi government of Germany was "far right" even when a majority of the population supported it. The political left-right spectrum is roughly defined with socialism, communism on the far left, social democracy on the left, classical liberalism on the center-right, conservatism on the right, and ultra-nationalism, fascism on the far right.
Far-right is well defined globally. Few core values: nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-socialism, economic libertarianism, racial and gender hierarchies, anti-establishment sentiments.

If you think a party is ticking many boxes, you may label it as "far-right".

Maybe I am missing something but Trump doesn't support much of that?

> nationalism, authoritarianism

Sure, you could say he supports this.

> anti-socialism

Not a fair right position. This I'd what anybody who is right of the center left position thinks.

> economic libertarianism

Trump doesn't support this. He wants all sorts of tariffs and the like.

> racial and gender hierarchies

I haven't seen any proof he supports such a thing.

> anti-establishment sentiments.

This is not a far right position. This is a populist position.

Calling the democratic party "far left" is stupid for a different reason, viewed from a global perspective, they're probably best positioned as centre-right.
Depends what you care about. Broadly speaking the entire developed world is further left than the US on workplace/business/union policy issues.

The US left (federally, not talking Alabama dems here) is generally more left on immigration, abortion and LGBTQ+ and affirmative action type policies than Europe, broadly speaking. Drug policy is a wash IMO. There's a lot more variation in Europe because the EU doesn't arbitrate social issues the way the US federal government does.

> Broadly speaking the entire developed world is further left than the US on workplace/business/union policy issues

This is what's crippling them. We initially built the social security net to counter this issue. Then we increased employee rights to maximum levels. I think one of either would be beneficial, but not both.

> not talking Alabama dems here

As an Alabama Dem, this is something that is just so disappointing to see when we're assumed to be not "generally more left"

There are so many here supporting and doing good, hard work with things like the Yellowhammer Fund, ¡HICA!, and Magic City Acceptance Center and Academy but we have to fight for any acknowledgement. We had more people vote for Kamala than several states but they amount to nothing in the public eye. It's so deflating and discouraging

I think you have to acknowledge that the democratic politicians that rise to prominence in your state are not exactly the left of the left when it comes to policy in the same way that Christ Christie and Charlier Baker aren't hardline republicans. It's just a reflection of the electorate, not a personal slight.
Doug Jones was our last democratic politician on the national stage and he voted quite liberally. We just don't have many anymore, due to gerrymandering and our electorate. I think Terri Sewell is our only non-Republican

It is not the best

https://ballotpedia.org/Doug_Jones_(Alabama)

This is not true. Their identity politics stances are widely unpopular across the globe, and you won't find another country where they are represented in political discourse.
Can you give some examples of what a far left country or government would be?
Yeah, you’re mixing up a couple facts with opinions here.
By that reasoning Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy weren't far right, because a very significant portion of their population actually voted for that. Or France now, our "Rassemblement National" used to be far right, but now enough people (about a third) vote for them that they no longer are.

Sorry if that feels like a strawman, but I find the idea of using popularity to determining what counts as "far" stupid and dangerous.

Maybe the problem is with all of you trying to reduce this to one dimension.
Democrats believe a man who thinks he is a woman is scientifically a woman. They believe in censorship. They believe in supporting and growing the military industrial complex. They believe in a discrimination campaign against whites and Asians, and meanwhile allowing unfettered illegal immigration with the intent of giving amnesty to the millions that entered through the forcibly unguarded border.

They are not centrist by any stretch of the imagination.

> Democrats believe a man who thinks he is a woman is scientifically a woman

It's a bit more complicated than that. Gender is a social construct, mostly determined by genes & genitalia. It's not quite enough to believe you're a woman, other people have to believe it too. Another issue at play is that there are far more "intersex" people (who have some characteristics of the opposite sex, sometimes to the point doctors don't quite know whether to list them as male or female), and from what I've heard trans people often (possibly generally) are "intersex" in a way that wasn't visible at birth. The idea of a female's brain in a male's body isn't that far fetched.

> They believe in censorship.

I believe this one is more popular in the far right (when in power) than in the far left (when in power)

> They believe in supporting and growing the military industrial complex.

Militarism sounds like it's more popular on the right. Though it can be more complicated: military backed imperialism can indeed support stuff like welfare at home.

---

Now the elephant in the room: last time I checked, democrats were firmly capitalists: they believe the means of production should be owned privately. Even if you exclude actual communism from acceptable discourse, they're fairly poor at public services and keeping inequality in check.

> The idea of a female's brain in a male's body isn't that far fetched.

How could it possibly be a female brain if it's part of a male body?

Can you name a policy of today's republican party that is further right than the republican party of 20 years ago? From my perspective they've ceded ground on many social issues. They had a porn star speak at the RNC convention this year. Dick Cheney, one of the people responsible for the "War on Terror", endorsed Kamala Harris. The idea that federal politics in the US has shifted right, not left, is baffling to me.
> Can you name a policy of today's republican party that is further right than the republican party of 20 years ago?

Sure I can: "mass deportation now"

That is one of infinite potential framings. It should be obvious it has served its usefulness and is no longer helpful and constructive.
Can you define far right?
That some people are born better than others and they deserve more in life. It’s an incredibly appealing message.

If you think you’re exceptional, vote Gorgoiler ‘28!

Why would you ask someone to define a known concept that has been around for decades? It’s not like definitions are based on someone’s opinion.
Definitions are often based on opinion. Definitions differ depending on many things.

Some definitions are not opinions.

The definition of "far right" is an opinion. Failing to define it in discourse will inevitably result in a lack of positive outcome.

Because they’re trolling, knowingly or unknowingly. There’s a presumption here that HN commenters can operate a search engine and read pages of text, and are therefore capable of basic research.

If they’re asking for a definition, it’s likely because they already know it and just want you to fall into a “gotcha” they can then divert discussion toward in their favor. It’s cheap theatrics.

You can't be unknowingly trolling as it requires intent. You could argue wilfull ignorance I guess?

At a quick glance, I found 10 definitions of far right that differ slightly. An assumption of malice here fails. Remarkably so.

You can miss me with that last part, because I have to assume malice on the part of those who try to steer discourse around vocabulary or policy nuance rather than acknowledge the binary reality of the question.
loading story #42064250
I am actually not. I just don't know of any policies or promises of Trump that I would genuinely categorize as far right. Border control is not far right according to me.

First of all I dislike Trump and for sure have liberal views in lot of aspects. And say even if I have malice intent and I am a hardcore Trump supporter, comments like yours wouldn't have changed my mind. Assuming you want to change people's side, it is not the reply that would change it.

According to Wikipedia, "Far-right politics ... are typically marked by radical conservatism, authoritarianism, ultra-nationalism, and nativism"

Digging into the page for radical conservatism, "Elements of ultraconservatism typically rely on cultural crisis; they frequently support anti-globalism – adopting stances of anti-immigration, nationalism, and sovereignty – use populism and political polarization, with in-group and out-group practices.[3][4][5][6] The primary economic ideology for most ultraconservatives is neoliberalism.[6] The use of conspiracy theories is also common amongst ultraconservatives.".

Trump is well-known for his populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and pro-nationalist rhetoric. He has also promulgated conspiarcy theories such as the Obama birther conspiracy and claims of stolen elections.

As for authoritarian, Trump forms a textbook example of a personality cult. He frequently attacks existing institutions and an independent media, undermining trust in a free democratic process. He frequently issues positive messages about authoritarian dictators in other countries such as Bolsonaro, Orban and Putin.

Ah, yes. That well know impartial source of political facts, wikipedia.

>>Trump is well-known for his populist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and pro-nationalist rhetoric. He has also promulgated conspiarcy theories such as the Obama birther conspiracy and claims of stolen elections.

You can be patriotic and anti-immigration without being far right. I think the claims of a stolen election are yet to be properly investigated. I'd welcome a truly impartial look into all the covid postal vote shenanigans last time.

>>As for authoritarian, Trump forms a textbook example of a personality cult. He frequently attacks existing institutions and an independent media, undermining trust in a free democratic process. He frequently issues positive messages about authoritarian dictators in other countries such as Bolsonaro, Orban and Putin.

You can criticise institutions now? And I'm sure he'd be in favour of an indepenndent media if America had one.

Putin is a obviously a dictator. Bolsonaro and Orban not so much (especially Bolsonaro as he was, er, voted out which would seem to automatically disqualify him from being a dictator).

Let me turn the question to you. At what point would a politician become far right? Have you ever seen a far-right politician?
I think if they actually advocate violence against minority groups, start genocidal wars, cancel elections etc.
loading story #42068892
Political ideologies are defined by a cluster of stances that collectively form a narrative. Those stances may individually have some debatable justifications, but it's when they're taken together that it becomes compelling.

It's not just

"there's something wrong in our society"

it's

"there's an insidious dark force at work, it's brought us down from our glorious past, these groups of people are involved, violence against this threat is understandable, only a few men are strong and capable enough to lead us out of this...".

In 1930s Germany and Italy the "groups of people" were marxists, jews, gypsies, homosexuals and a few others. In modern Russia it's LGBT, central Asians, objectors to the war, and various religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses. For Trump and a lot of Europe's right-wing it's LGBT, immigrants, intellectuals, and liberals (though he calls them communists).

He's not said anything like this though:

"there's an insidious dark force at work, it's brought us down from our glorious past, these groups of people are involved, violence against this threat is understandable, only a few men are strong and capable enough to lead us out of this...".

loading story #42068692
To give you a bit of perspective,the democrats are right of the Conservatives in the UK.

So they would kinda feel feel far-rightish to us only because the democrats are more conservative than ours

They are a corporate party, just like the democrats. Supporting secure borders is not far right. Republicans have support of every race, they are not racist despite the media repeating that they are. Trump is very hesitant about getting involved in wars. I see nothing far right about them, maybe they are somewhat nationalistic instead of globalist, but the US is a diverse nation. At the end of the day they are just another corporate party that appealed more to the American people.
Non-American here too, but since your perspective is EU, what is Nazi party when the Republican party is far right? Like, far far far right?
Depends on how you define 'right'.

Were they conservative? No, they wanted to upend society and create one that is nothing like anything ever seen before. They were also anti-religion. In many ways, they were anti-tradition, and I wouldn't consider their obsession with bringing back dead traditions to be traditional.

Were they hateful, racist, etc.? Yes, up to you if that's considered 'right'.

Were they, like how American political parties are, friends of big business? Not really, they wanted to sponsor monopolies and whatnot but also wanted the businesses to have no influence over the state, rather the other way around, the state can force the big business to do what they want. As far as if it actually worked that way when they were in power, I'm not sure.

Common ground?

They don't believe in climate change, want zero controls on guns, are generally anti-immigrant - even the legal immigrants are lied about e.g. Haitians in Springfield, don't believe women should have certain rights concerning their own healthcare, want to keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations, etc.

They are impenetrable. Yes they'd claim I'm unwilling to compromise but we're talking about different starting points - I have to get them to accept certain actual real-world events and facts as true before starting a meaningful conversation.

Legal immigrants overwhelmingly voted red. "They" are minorities, white people, men and women, young and old.
I watched the victory speech. He promised three things (1) only four years of him in the White House, (2) appointing RFK to eliminate vaccines and gut the health care industry (3) end current wars, so basically give his boss military control of Eastern Europe.

I don’t believe (1). The other two would mean our kids’ life expectancies just halved.

- Eliminating vaccines is a terrible idea, but public school vaccine requirements are state law in my state. RFK won't be touching them.

- Gutting the health care industry? That's not necessarily a bad thing. Wasteful health care administration (passing the buck) was something like 30% of health care costs pre-ACA, and health care is now 17.3% of GDP. Shedding 1/3 of health care costs would bring our health care expenses to the same ratio of GDP as the UK. Of course it would also cause an unemployment crisis...

The plan is to withhold federal funding for schools that require vaccines.

One example of gutting the industry (announced today): ban fluoridated water.

The very fact he feels the need to promise (1) says it all.
Common ground. The whole democratic apparatus of the United States might get severely hollowed out for the foreseeable future, and you're talking about finding common ground.
What he means is: please let us hollow out democracy without you interfering.
Why is everyone else responsible but the people responsible? Not calling out fascism is surely just as problematic.

Do you have any data (except for interpersonal psychology) on whether letting fascism slide or calling it out ultimately makes the situation worse? At what point do you call fascism fascism? When it's too late?

> At what point do you call fascism fascism? When it's too late?

You call it fascism when it is fascism. Once it is openly fascist then it is probably too late to stop, but you don't call it fascism until it is fascism.

So, only when it is too late can you talk about it?
How exactly is Trump/Republican party fascist?
Let's hope we never have to find out, but so many people captivated by a conman while simultaneously crying about everyone else's position is a recipe for abuse.

Separating children from parents at the border, reverting hard fought women's right to their own body, that is the stirring of fascist behaviour.

> Separating children from parents at the border

That wasn't his main intention. It was to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the country. And after popular criticism, he reversed that policy and never enacted it again. That doesn't sound authoritarian/fascist to me. It sounds more like bending to the will of the people you govern.

> reverting hard fought women's right to their own body

And a large swath of the country believes abortion is murder. I guess for that, they are fascists in your eyes?

The term really has lost it's meaning and is just used by the Left to demonize the other side.

> The term fascist has been used as a pejorative,[74] regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell noted in 1944 that the term had been used to denigrate diverse positions "in internal politics". Orwell said that while fascism is "a political and economic system" that was inconvenient to define, "as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'",[75] and in 1946 wrote that '"Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable."[76] Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2000 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".[77]: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

You could try to answer this yourself by looking up the definition and cross checking it with the rhetoric from the republican party during this campaign.
The burden of proof is with the accuser.

I fail to see how the Republican party is fascist. I think it's a term the Left uses to demonize their opposition. Ironically, that is kind of fascist-like.

> The term fascist has been used as a pejorative,[74] regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell noted in 1944 that the term had been used to denigrate diverse positions "in internal politics". Orwell said that while fascism is "a political and economic system" that was inconvenient to define, "as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'",[75] and in 1946 wrote that '"Fascism' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable."[76] Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2000 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".[77]: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I assume you have good reasons to believe Republicans are fascist. I'm simply asking you and any others who believe this to share your reasons. Is that not reasonable?

Even if I listed all reasons why the rhetoric during the campaign reeked of fascism, you’d simply dismiss them, like all the times before where this has been called out already. This is why people rightly feel people like you act like they’re in a cult. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

Like right now, by editing your comment you're desperately trying to pose there is no accepted definition of fascism. Dismissing definitions only fits the bill.

Ah yes, the "you're too stupid or unreasonable (i.e. deplorable or trash)" to reason with so I won't even try argument.

> you’d simply dismiss them

I'm a random internet stranger. How could you possibility know me so well? Again, it's just a blanket stereotyping and demonization of people who have different beliefs that you do. A mass ad hominem attack. That attitude is a root of many problems in the political arena. I expect that kind of rhetoric on Reddit, but am disappointed to encounter it here.

> Even if I listed all reasons

I'm a busy person and I assume you are too. Why don't you list one and we'll go from there?

You already try to dismiss an accepted definition, so why would I bother reiterating all the easy to find articles, videos and podcasts that literally quote and warn of Trump's rhetoric? Do you think you sound like a person that is trying to understand criticism of his party, especially right after voting for them?
> You already try to dismiss an accepted definition

In this discussion, we've already defined it? where? That's news to me that I can dismiss something that I wasn't aware of.

> Do you think you sound like a person that is welcoming criticism

I am very welcoming of criticism of my party and the one I voted for. Trump can be a bombastic jerk. I voted for him because his policies align more with my values than Harris'. He was the lesser (much lesser) of two evils. I didn't vote for him in the primaries and I wish he wouldn't have won them.

Anyway, you continue to make assumptions about me rather than discuss/debate the issue of why you think Trump is a fascist. It's not much of a discussion and so I'll opt out now. All the best to you.

If you think every debate should first have a discussion on definitions, before you can get to the heart of the argument, you should not be debating.

We don't have to define it. That's the point. It's already been done for us.

It's the same with asking me to list reasons or sources that explain the republican parties fascist tendencies, while that's been done thousands of times through the course of their campaign. If you were truly curious as to why people might feel that way, you could have done so at any point during the last few months.

You did't accept the definition you bothered to look up and you didn't accept the valid concerns people had during the campaign.

The real reason you're walking away from this conversation is because you don't care if I am right.

You're not afraid of fascism, because you think you're in the right group.

I think the other poster was just being polite, trying to have a discussion about the left's misuse of the term fascism, yet failed to account for the degree of intelligence required to understand such nuance. So let me spell it out for you all, you are misusing the term and on the odd occasion that one of you actually checks the definition, you view it through your own biased lens, rather than reading the complex description thoroughly. You cherry-pick some terms and twist others around to suit your own dogma, with the intended goal of using it to villainise the enemy.

If you replace nationalism with partisanship, in very many ways the modern left is far more closely aligned with the vile components of fascism than the republican party, or even Trump supporters. The left have done everything they can do vilify anyone who disagrees with their core beliefs, which they hold are a matter of morale superiority and to which, in their minds, no person of moral substance could ever find disagreeable.

By very definition, conservatives are conservative. When they disagree with someone, they continue to treat them respectfully and move on with their lives, comfortable in the reality that there exists people around them with very different beliefs than their own. The left, on the other hand, do no such thing and yet look in the mirror and convince themselves that they're the better people in all this.

Trump less won this election than the democrats did lose it by arrogantly putting up a candidate with strong ties to the current unpopular administration and whose other policies and attributes did not appeal to the swing voter.

I don’t even have a dog in this fight since I'm from the EU. I can see why the Democrats lost. I can also see why Trump won.

And I'm factually correct when I say that Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous. He has motivated even a reasonable person like you to defend him vehemently. He made you part of his group, and by the looks of it you’re already starting to hate those who are not in it.

I was watching a streamer who once referred to something as “stupid” before they corrected themselves to use a different word (I don’t remember because it’s not the point). The reason for their correction was that they believe that word to be a lazy way of describing something; lots of things can be considered generally “stupid” but there’s always some underlying reason for that conclusion which will invariably be a more informative descriptor. (It takes effort to discover this reason, hence it’s “lazy” when one does not.)

I do commonly see “fascist” used to describe things in similar ways where the person seems to be expressing a general disdain for something. They do successfully convey some meaning but it’s very non-specific. Just food for thought for readers who want their opinions heard more than they want to hem and haw over the specific meanings of words.

Many, many ways:

1. Rhetoric of an "enemy within". Trump has already made it clear that he intends to use the US military to "clean out" our country.

2. Supreme consolidation of power. Trump plans to re-enact Schedule F. Tens of thousands of federal workers will be fired, and their replacements will be required to vocalize their devotion to Trump. The bureau meritocracy system, which has been in place since the 1800s, will be removed completely. In its place, a system of political loyalty.

3. Supreme avoidance of the law. Trump is completely immune to any criminal prosecution while president, and he has made it clear he plans to use this newfound power "very aggressively".

4. Desecration of education. Within the first 100 days, the department of education will be dissolved. States will pivot to ahistorical pro-conservative education, if they provide any public education at all.

Objectively, the use of force to eject protestors at rallies is of the fascist mindset. Trump endorses it.

The counter-argument is that a culture of violent police suppression is just modern America, and it’s not fair to tar one particular party with that particular brush.

> the use of force to eject protestors at rallies

This has happened at Harris rallies as well.

Advocating conspiracy theories, undermining trust in democratic process, pro-nationalist, racist, sympathetic to (if not supportive of) white supremacists, ultra-conservative and traditionalist, stoking unfounded fears of communism/marxism, etc...
Those items on your list are more opinions than facts. They are terms used by the Left to demonize their opposition.
Okay. Let's take conspiracy theories. Trump has promoted the Obama birther conspiracy, pizza gate, that the Clintons are responsible for the death of Epstein and other political opponents, that there was fraud in the 2012 election and various false claims about the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections, various tropes about Soros etc...

It's a fact that Trump shared and promoted these. It's a fact that they are conspiracy theories.

And the Russian collusion "right under our noses" bullshit floated by the Dems turned out to be just that, bullshit conspiracy theory costing taxpayers over $30 million for the investigation. So that makes Dems fascist too then?
You can read why Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly (right wing Marine General) called him a fascist,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/24/trump-fascis...

The positions the Republicans voiced in their campaign cam ony be summarized as far right. So applying the moniker to the party in it's current form is accurate. The party isn't the same as their voters/supporters.
As a non-american, I don't see what else they could be defined as. Why try to seek a middle ground with the far right when they clearly don't want to
It seems to me like those in power should be the ones to attempt to find common ground with those they govern.

Am I crazy to think that?

They like authoritarianism for a reason: they simply don’t care about other people. The lack of empathy is chilling.
No, it's the people who must be wrong. Surely!
Perhaps you haven’t been listening to the rhetoric of republicans.
Common ground with people who voted for someone who campaigned on hate is a pretty steep hill. Funny how Republicans are never asked to "find common ground"
That really isn't the primary alienating and divisive rhetoric from this election. It's just the bit you didn't like.
All of the moderate Republicans were primaried out over the last eight years, the senate has a few holding on but the house has been mostly cleared out. The party is very much far right. Did you not see how many Republicans refused to certify the election in 2021? It’s only gotten worse since then.
I’m sorry, but OP was right in calling the party - the entire party, and its supporters, and its candidates, and its institutions - far right. Because at the end of the day, many believed this was a nuanced choice about policy differences rather than what it really was: a binary choice between an imperfect Democracy, and strong man totalitarianism.

The voters made their choice clear, and those of us most impacted by GOP authoritarian policies now get to spend the next four years (at least) trying to make sure we survive attacks against us while also maybe still salvaging this grand democratic experiment.

So no, you can take that “find common ground” and shove it. We adhered to decorum for decades, even as the GOP marched ever further right and ignored, plowed through, or destroyed any and every uncrossable line or improper decorum in their path. You don’t get to try and apologize on behalf of an electorate that willfully has chosen violence, nor should we (those affected by said violence) have to tolerate their excuses.

In my country in Europe our most "right-wing" parties would be considered leftist in the US, so hopefully this brings into perspective just how extremely right-wing republicans are.
Which parties and country would that be?
{"deleted":true,"id":42060649,"parent":42060605,"time":1730893975,"type":"comment"}
No. Turns out I found common ground with Liz and Dick Cheney. Wouldn't have had that on my bingo card in 2016.
I mean, they call Harris a communist so all bets are off. Even Sanders would barely register on the left side pretty much anywhere in the western world
Pretending that Republicans aren't far right is just disingenuous. The democrats are solidly right and America doesn't have a left.
Republicans stopped existing in 2016 when they found out they either have to bow down to Trump or become third-party behind democrats and trumpists. Last meaningful actions of republicans was suppressing Trump during his 2016 reign, but those people are out now. There are no republicans left in power.

Who's in charge now are not republicans. Now it's just far right believing in genius and ability of their cartoonish leader.

[flagged]
Actually that statement shows exactly the political and societal problems there is today in the US. If people can’t even talk together and even get insulted it’s going to go even worst.
There is really no worse left to go.
Your illogical and hyperbolic rhetoric is part of the problem.
Ho really? Did not history teach us everything that is happening today and can happen tomorrow ?

It can go worst as in a civil war. To a full split of the country in x countries. Now I don’t think it will happen but saying it can’t go worst is both factually false and not anchored in reality

There’s no bottom, bro.
Nothing has happened to you. Nothing is happening to you. If you're in hell, than what is Gaza?
It's just the standard leftist doublethink of the past decade. Any realistic definition that labels 99% of Republicans as far right would label 95% of Democrats far right too. If their ideas were popular they would have started their own party a decade ago instead of being ground up in the DNC.

They claim "harm reduction" but that's not how just not voting works, 95% is still a super majority and anything you "win" is just tokenism at the end of the day.