Yeah it is exhausting when Mr Nuance consistently fails to grasp basic concepts requiring nuance.
Trump isn't a Republican now really, the Republicans have become Trumpian. He is very much his own thing and I've not claimed otherwise. Republicans were not dead before MAGA at all. In 2010, largely off the back of the tea party movement, the Republicans gained 7 Senate seats and 63 House seats (the largest shift to Republican since 1948). Democrats clawed a little bit back in 2012 only to then have the Republicans gain 9 senate seats and thirteen house seats in 2014, giving them the largest senate gain since 1980 and the largest majority in the house since 1928. In what world is that "dead in the water"? Obama's personal popularity shielded him but Republicans as a whole were not dead in the water at all. This massive uptick in support followed the emergence of the tea party movement following Obama's victory. I cannot understand why you brushed all that under the carpet and pretended it didn't happen or can claim that the Republicans having their largest majority in a century is dead in the water. What alternative reality are you living in?
The Tea Party movement also brought a certain type of Republican. It was the conspiracy theorists, the shameless liars, the openly racist, the worst elements of society. The Republicans embraced this ideology and it brought them huge success in the Legislature. This all predated Trump and MAGA although one of the big things of the Tea Party movement was the Birthers. Do you know who one of the most vocal birthers was? Trump. If the strategy was failing the Republicans so badly, why were they getting record wins embracing this strategy? Did you really look no further than the presidential elections and Obamas personal popularity...? This was also where the Republicans began being extremely obstructionist, with one of the most obstructionist Congresses in American history. They successfully blocked Obamas nomination to the Supreme Court among other things, which directly enabled Trump to fill them when he came in. But you still see no laying the groundwork prior to MAGA...?
The Republicans weren't positioning to put Trump in power, nowhere have I claimed that. Mr Nuance can't keep up? What I actually said is Republicans had already embraced a strategy and mentality that enabled Trump to win. They had embraced conspiracy, racism, obstructionism, lying, win at all costs to a degree well beyond political norms. It was an environment of openly being the biggest shits they could. It is an environment that suited the likes of Trump. Had the Republicans not embraced this strategy throughout the Obama years, Trump would not have risen to the top.
No, Trump's victory was not social media led, Trump's victory was led by the mentality that the Republican party had already been embracing since day dot of the Obama presidency through the Tea Party takeover. Before MAGA took over the Republican party, the Tea Party had. They were already shifting in that direction before MAGA became a thing.
There isn't much twisting needing with Trump, he lies far more frequently than any previous president. Oh I think everything he says is a lie, the other side thinks it's all true therefore the truth is in the middle!? By that logic, flat earthers think the earth is flat, I think the earth is round, therefore the reality must be the Earth is slightly deflated? You realise it's possible for one side to actually lie more than the other right? These things aren't perfectly even. Your refusal to even accept this possibility is incredible. You can't "both sides" everything, although you appear to be trying very hard. You realise it is possible to objectively prove Trump is lying right? Also to show that the lies vastly eclipse the numbers for other presidents?
Again, and I can't believe I'm having to repeat this, the Republicans BELIEVING they can easily define a woman is not the same as Republicans ACTUALLY being able to define a woman. The fact they won't admit to the issues with their definitions doesn't mean they therefore can define a woman. If you had a kid who could very confidently say the answer to 2+2=5, would you say they have no problem doing maths or would you say they merely believe they have no problem doing maths? It's not about merely asserting you can do it, it's about actually being able to.
But seeing as you want examples:
The Missouri Republican stumbled to define what a woman before muddling over what a ‘vagina’ was
www.independent.co.uk
Some mentioned body parts. Some cited chromosomes. Others didn't want to talk about it at all.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
The confusing and vague executive order underscores how complex sex is and why it’s hard to reduce it into a neat binary
www.theguardian.com
Funny isn't it how these people who all act like it's so easy are all failing to do so without glaring errors isn't it? But you've bought their self-promoted propaganda in full and this is EXACTLY what I've been going on about. Republicans are simply better liars. They all openly state they know how to define a woman yet you couldn't produce a single case where they can actually do so without an issue in the definition.
I really can't be bothered with this any more, you literally claimed that Republicans most successful period in elections in a century was evidence of them being in the doldrums, you completely ignored the influence of the Tea party, the parrot the Republican line about women, you both-sides the extent of lying and you claim Republicans aren't the ones with thin skins and pearl clutching, even as Trump fires the chief statistician for giving him figures he didn't like. You're living in a ******* alternative reality.
