Talk:Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

Some objectivity

There is a recent study [1] that broke the parties into factions, commissioned by the Washington Post, Harvard University, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. This would be a good foundation for describing "factions".

AdamRetchless 14:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Ghost of Goldwater

Before I get started I've got a couple of points to make: 1) I wouldn't say that all of the religious right want to eliminate the separation of church and state. A lot do, but most probably just want to blur the line between the two. That doesn't make them moderates, that doesn't make it right, I just wanted to clarify things. It's a lot like the secularist faction of the Democrat Party, not all secularists want to ban all religion, many just want to ban any public display of religion. 2) The neocons are in the mainstream in the Republican Party. So are the liberals in the Democratic Party. Being mainstream is a matter of numbers not agenda. 1/3 of the American People are Conservative, and the neocons clearly dominate the Right wing. 3) a good example of a liberal Republican is Lincoln Chafee. He has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress. The only reason he hasn't been completely ostracised from the party is because he votes for the Republicans on control issues such as who gets to be on what committee. But he always votes liberal on political issues. 4) A good example of a RINO would have been Mike Forbes before he switched parties. Another example of a RINO is anyone who constantly sides with the Democrats and/or bashes other Republicans at every opportunity. But because neither of the two parties is programmatic, voting against the majority of Republicans on political issues isn't the best determinant of who is or isn't a RINO, after all the party is a coalition of various factions. An accurate definition of a RINO would be: a member of the Republican Party whose actions are harmful to the Republican Party (and not harmful to the majority political agenda).

Here is my major issue, why the hell have libertarians been relegated to the loser table. We deserve to sit at the cool kids table, just as much, probably more so than the paleocons(seeming as how the only paleocon left is Pat Buchanan). We libertarians revitalized the Republican party from it's marginalized status of the Post-New Deal realignment where it was suffocating to death as Democrat-lite into the powerhouse that is the Party of Limited Government. The last Realignment may have been called the Reagan Revolution but it was Goldwater that started it. Reagan acknowledged libertarianism in forming the party's modern image with this quote I found in the wikiquote article on Ronald Reagan:

       " 'The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government 
       interference or less centralized authority or more individual
       freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what
       libertarianism is.' 
        -from an interview published in Reason (July 01, 1975)" 

Even Neoconservatism is just a synthesis of libertarian and religious right ideas. The libertarian Republicans may often be sounded out by those damn religious fundamentalists, we still make up a crucial part of the backbone of the party. The point is we aren't dead yet and we still represent an influential faction. Also, further subdividing the conservative movement into social conservative, fiscal conservative, compassionate conservative, and every other conservative position one could take on any given single issue is just splitting hears and they should be deleted. The factions should be re-organized as:

        Core factions:
           -neoconservatives
           -paleoconservatives
           -Religious Right
           -libertarians
        minor/pariah factions:
           -moderates
           -liberals

I will wait for feedback before I go making any alterations to this article. We might not support the Bridge to Nowhere or government video cameras in our showerheads but without us, the Republican party couldn't honestly call itself the party of Limited Government; so we don't belong lumped in with liberals. And we're certainly filled with too much piss and vinegar to be lumped in with the moderates. -Mike Reason

Alt-Right Section

I'd like to add my support for a reference to the Alt-Right as one the factions within the Republican Party. Of all the presently identified factions, not a one of them is uniquely Trumpian and Trump has altered the Republican Party substantially. Steve Bannon, Trump's lead strategist, and Steve Miller, Trump's primary aide and fomenter of the Trump immigration policy, do not belong to any other faction, they are Alt-Righters and are considered so by the ideologues of the Alt-Right (Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug). LAWinans (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve Bannon and Steven Miller weren't Alt-right — they would be considered "alt-lite" 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:19E0:EF65:AF1C:C3F2 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose adding an alt-right section? It doesn't fit under the current section of conservatism, and is a notable part of the base. Don1182 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My Suggested Wording:

The alt-right is a loose group of right-wing activists that reject political correctness, feminism, globalism, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism. Once considered a fringe element among the party, the faction saw significant and profound growth during Donald Trump's run for President of the United States and his Presidency. The movement is made up of right-wing populists, neoreactionaries, national anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, paleoconservatives, national syndicalists, anti-Zionists, paleolibertarians, white nationalists, and members of the men's rights movement. More extreme elements include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and fascists.

The alt-right has had a significant influence on Republican thought in the United States, including using the Sailer Strategy for winning political support. This has been listed as a key reason for Trump's win in the 2016 election, due to Trump's massive gains among white men. The Trump administration also includes several figures who are associated with the alt-right, such as White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. In 2016, Bannon described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right".

Notable members of the alt-right include Steve Bannon, Richard B. Spencer, Lauren Southern, Jared Taylor, and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Support - Obviously yes for me, but the movement is different enough from conservatism and libertarianism to warrant an independent section.

• Support This is a very loudly and proudly self-identified faction, as is made clear by the provided sources. No "connecting the dots" here. Having this section, or one of similar content, seems indicated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

This whole section looks like WP:NOR. If there is an actual "faction" within the Republican party is not provided by these sources. What is done is connecting dots, yet that is no verification for an actual faction. The same would be by taking a handful of newsarticles which portray an similar circumstance for the Democratic Party and possible links and attitudes to left-wing groups as Antifa, hence including a section named "Antifa faction" et cetera. Without reasonable, coherent and scientific sources there is no ground for inclusion in this article.--Joobo (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Southern is Canadian. Spencer and Taylor aren't Republicans and AFAIK neither is Milo. This is poorly sourced NOR that is no more useful than a "communists" section on the Democrat page. Toa Nidhiki05 18:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

While there may be no communists within the Democratic Party, there is at least one democratic socialist! --Mathmensch (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - A term or label does not make a faction. The term alt right is sufficiently of note to warrant an article in the Wikipedia, and in fact there is such an article. But to be included as a "faction" of the GOP and covered by this article, there needs to be evidence that it represents an organized grouping within the party: PAC's, organizations, conferences, think tanks, donor networks, grassroots organizations, notable GOP elected officials, pundits, and journalists, Congressional caucuses, etc associated with the faction. I doubt any of this exists, other than maybe some journalists. Moreover the material that was deleted did not include any sources to that effect. Where is the "Alt Right" Caucus in the House or Senate? Is there even a single GOP elected official who would willingly be labeled as a representative of the Alt Right? It is easy enough to get sources about the Alt Right because that label has been bandied about a lot in the last year or so. Some people on the Internet have embraced the label, as applied to themselves. But you need sources to the effect that it is a coherent "faction" of the GOP, not just a new label for right wing bigots. At most, at this point the term merits no more than a mention in the section on the "Conservative" faction, as a label which became current in 2016 for (some of) the most extreme tendencies within that faction. Person54 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Support - The criteria that are listed by Person54 above are in fact met by the suggested passage. The alt-right is obviously associated to the Republican party, as is exemplified by the alt-right tendencies of many of its members, as well as the winning campaign led by the leading alt-right figure Trump. Trump is now surrounded by alt-right people, in particular Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller, but many other advisors, which are part of the Republican establishment. There are loads of similarities concerning donors of the Republican party, ie. many people who fund the alt-right machine also donate to Republicans and support their (I don't even dare say political) causes.--Mathmensch (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it isn't enough to simply find examples of the label being used. We have an Alt Right article in the Wikipedia. Give me the name of even one Republican elected official who has run on an explicitly "Alt Right" platform, supported by "Alt Right" PAC's, "Alt Right" grassroots organizations and donors, etc. who has embraced that term. Don't tell me Trump, because he does not identify himself as "Alt Right". You can only say that his policies are such that he is cheered on by people who apply the label to him and themselves, and he has done nothing to disabuse them of the notion. (Bannon doesn't identify as alt right, either, by the way, notwithstanding his quote about Breitbart being the platform for the alt-right.) The GOP is a political party, a group of people working to support each other to get elected, and if elected in sufficient numbers, to govern. When there are some GOP elected officials who embrace that label and the policies associated with it, together with some examples of the usual support infrastructure for them, the Alt Right will be a faction (God forbid). Until then, it is a label, and this article is not about labels. Person54 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump defining himself that way obviously does not have any reference value, since his claims are mostly total and utter rubbish having no connection to reality whatsoever. Then look at [2], [3], [4], [5]. We can include these in the section if you want. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathmensch, from your edit summary on your most recent attempt to put through a new Alt Right section, I take it that you think that the block on Joobo as a result of ANI resolves this issue. But it doesn't. It isn't clear even that Joobo's edits on this article had anything to do with the block, as your dispute with Joobo seems to predate his reverts of your edits in this article, and the ANI seems to have been prompted by his edits on another article. It is possible that Joobo, as you claimed, was following you around Wikipedia challenging your edits generally. I don't have any comment on that, not being all that interested (to be honest). But even if so it does not mean that Joobo's actions in relation to this article didn't have support from other editors, who have no "dogs in the fight" between you and Joobo. Me, for example. I agree with you that the Alt Right is a movement that merits coverage in the Wikipedia. There is, in fact, such an article. But as I said before, this is the article on Factions of the GOP, not the article covering every American right wing political manifestation. There are no doubt plenty of John Birch Society members, or monarchists, in the Republican party. But that does not mean there are John Birch or monarchist factions in the GOP. Believe it or not, every right-wing lunatic position or movement does not manifest itself as a GOP faction, though perhaps it may seem that way to you. Trump's ties to Alt Right figures do not suffice to make the AR a faction of the GOP either, in my opinion. If you think otherwise, there needs to be a authoritative sourcing for specifically that, not just references to various articles and op-eds about the "Alt Right", generally. However, in the spirit of working towards consensus, I suggest that there might be consensus for adding a few sentences to the "Conservative Wing" section of the article — to the effect that during and after the 2016 Presidential election, several commentators expressed concern that Trump's actions and affiliations were "mainstreaming" the Alt Right and were pushing the "Conservative wing" further to the right, particularly around issues of immigration and religious tolerance. We would still need sourcing for this, of course, but that might be less difficult than finding sources for the notion that the Alt Right has become a full-fledged faction of the GOP, on the same footing as the factions currently mentioned. Person54 (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Person54:, I agree that there need to be more sources. I gave them above, but did not yet include them. Since they and others make explicit the connection of the Republican party to the alt-right, I take it for granted that if I rework the section by including these sources, my 3edit won't be reverted again. Is that acceptable? Otherwise, there may arise suspicions that you wish to conceal the affiliations of the Republican party to the alt-right. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should be thinking along the lines of the "Alt Right" being presented as a full-fledged faction of the GOP on equal footing with the three already mentioned. Speaking of those three, it is debatable that the "Libertarian" section describes an actual "faction" of the GOP either. But they do have the Pauls, Paul Ryan, and others, and some institutional presence in the party. It is small. I think the article is currently somewhat misleading regarding the importance or size of the Libertarians, as an institutional presence in the GOP, and the AR has far less of a claim to "factionhood" than even the Libertarians. I think your proposed addition to the article would be highly misleading. The reality right now is that the so-called "Moderates" are mostly dead and of historical interest; the Libertarians are very small; and the real factions of the GOP are the groups mentioned in the article as "sub-factions" of the Conservative wing, the various components of the "Reagan Coalition". Where the Alt Right fits right now is that isn't a faction of the GOP in any sense, at least not yet. A faction is an identifiable group or set of groups, not just an ideology, organizing strategy, or "meme". The AR is mostly an online phenomenon. It is hard to give the name of AR "groups" which aren't mostly websites. The same can be said of the "antifas" as well, in relation to the Democrats. So, please, as I suggested above, come up with a sentence or two mentioning the "Alt Right" as a development within the "Conservative wing" of the party which began in 2016 with Trump's election, around particular issues like immigration, feminism, political correctness, etc. Provided it is sourced, I would join you in a consensus for that. Person54 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article Political faction shows that a faction need not have an institutional presence (whatever the definition of that would be). But doubtlessly, there are alt-right representatives within the republican party, and they are sufficiently numerous so that they form a faction (and even that wouldn't be required by the definition).

Now usually, I try to bend over backwards, even if an author suggests something which is slightly off. But in this case, I won't do so, and the reason is how the republican machine works. Let me explain.

The chieftains of the Republican party are enourmously wealthy billionaires, such as Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch or the Koch brothers. They deliver the talking points to a vast army of people who are paid to "spread the word"; note that the poverty and economic decline caused by their very policies makes them more powerful, since it makes the workforce, from which the "word-spreaders" are recruited, much cheaper.

A good example for this are people like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are basically paid megaphones for Trump, the Koch brothers etc. Any Fox News host is another example.

What these people unfortunately do not know is that if they would collectively stand up to the machine and decline their services, they would in the long run improve their situation tremendously. In the short run, they could improve their situation by telling their story, and telling the world how they were forced to write certain things on threat of economic decline. This would of course yield them much more economic (let alone "soft factors" such as happiness or relations) success than what they're doing currently, but they don't know that.

Now I'm not saying that the Democratic party is much better in all of these regards, and I'm also not saying that things stand better in different countries (in fact, Russia currently is, for all practical purposes, a dictatorship, and not one of the nicer ones). But we always have to point a finger; only if we know our boundaries, we can work on transgressing them. --Mathmensch (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Total removal of JBS from Historical Factions section

In regard to this edit which removed an entire section that has been in place for months, political historian, Matt Dallek, is only one of many sources for the JBS movement's involvement and influence on the GOP. There is a prevalence of RS that acknowledges this historical faction, that remains active to this very day. While the faction may be considered small by today's standards it was still a notable faction that grew to have lasting effects according to experts, scholarship and mainstream consensus.

Removing any mention of JBS in this article because it doesn't mention page numbers seems to be overkill, ie WP:PRESERVE. A simple tag would have been more appropriate. Regardless I have added plenty of citations (below) for anyone to look through in case they wish to find something better. Due the the quality and prevalence of sources I am restoring this section unless/until there is a consensus for removal.

Notable GOP adherents and associations with the JBS movement also include...

• Barry Goldwater “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society,” Goldwater told Buckley and Kirk. “I’m not talking about commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks. I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs.” After considering Goldwater’s concerns, Buckley and Kirk agreed to a compromise. They would challenge Welch without directly criticizing the John Birch Society’s members, creating an opening for Goldwater to do likewise. Gingerly at first, but more forcefully as the 1960s went on, the conservative thought leaders began to distance themselves from the Birchers’ paranoid denunciations of the U.S. government."
• Ron Paul "In the interview, Mr. Paul said he parted ways with the John Birch Society over its emphasis on conspiracy theories — “that 12 or 15 people for hundreds of years get together and plan the world.” "The factual record on Ron Paul and the John Birch Society is clear, and his association with the fringe organization that made itself famous by alleging that Dwight Eisenhower was "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy" cannot be so easily brushed aside. In October, Paul delivered the keynote address at the Society's 50th anniversary dinner; prior to his speech he released a statement praising the "great patriotic organization." Nor is his involvement limited to this one address. When I reported my story last year, a Birch Society spokesman told me that Paul had spoken to the group about a half dozen times over the past decade."
• Phyllis Schlafly a notable American attorney, conservative activist, author, anti-feminist spokesperson for the national conservative movement, and 1952 Republican party nominee.

The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 CPAC and attended in 2023

JBS had a hundred delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention.

More citations..

• The Conversation Christopher S Parker, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Washington
• The Conversation Chris Towler, Assistant Professor of Political Science, California State University, Sacramento
• WaPo Matt Dallek
• Time Matt Dalek
• WaPo via E. J. Dionne
• The Hill Professor John Kenneth White, Ph.D. in Politics - Catholic University
• Rick Perlstein & Edward H. Miller
• David Barstow via NYT
• Sean Wilentz via NPR
• John Cassidy (journalist) via The New Yorker
• Thomas Mallon via The New Yorker
• David Leonhardt

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, can I ask what the point is of listing all of these sources here on the talk page without putting any of them in the article itself? You've now reinstated this content and it still cites only one source--and it's an entire book. MonMothma (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to add any of the sources you think are best. I wanted to give you an opportunity to look at them and give your opinions before adding anything or tagging the current section.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget Larry McDonald, the Democratic congressman chosen as chair of the Society in 1983 until his plane was shot down by the Soviets. Otherwise, none of the named polticians was actually a member of the Society.

The fact that the JBS has rarely been invited to CPAC, which itself is on the right-wing fringe of the Republican Party, shows how little significance it has on the party. The Democratic Socialists of America actually has members in the Democratic congressional caucus, but there is not a subsection about it there and it is not treated as a faction. And certainly socialist though has had some influence on the Democratic Party over time, even if it is highly exaggerated by their opponents. TFD (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, I took a look at the numbered footnotes you cited above and have the following comments:

1: Behind a paywall, so I couldn't read the whole thing. The block quote you included shows that JBS was influential in Arizona in the early 1960s. It does not show that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

2: Behind a paywall, so I couldn't read the whole thing. The block quote you included shows a connection between Ron Paul and JBS. That is not the same thing as showing that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

3. Shows a connection between Ron Paul and JBS. Does not show that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

4, 5, and 6: Shows that JBS has had a presence at the Conservative Political Action Conference. That does not mean that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party. CPAC and the Republican Party are not the same thing. (Does every group that shows up at CPAC have an entry on this page?!) Also, The New American is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and The Fieldston News is published by students at a prep school in New York City.

7. The fact that JBS had a hundred delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention is the most persuasive information you have offered so far on the point in question. We could use more information, and we could definitely use a page number.

8. Strongly suggests that JBS has influenced some Republicans. That is not the same thing as showing that there was a JBS faction within the Republican Party.

9. Behind a paywall.

You listed several other sources, but I don't want to go through them all. Do any of them show that there was a JBS faction within the GOP? MonMothma (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble with paywalls, however as you probably know, that doesn't disqualify sources, besides, I don't think I need to "persuade" anyone, history and the sources speak for themselves.

It seems you are looking for a more literal use of the term "faction."

Something along these lines?...

• “As an ADL operative wrote, those Birchers were going to argue that the communists killed Kennedy, and then add that it was a Jewish plot, because the commies were all Jews.” In truth, Dr. Dallek added, the Birchers “were relieved that the assassin was not one of their own. A number of Birchers came up with all kinds of crazy theories about who was to blame, and Jews often were part of it. Revilo Oliver, a raging antisemite, gave speeches about how the government was planning Kennedy’s funeral weeks before he died.

“Even some Birchers thought that he was nuts.”

"Now, much has changed, but much has remained the same. “One of the biggest differences between then and now is that the Bircher ideas and sensibilities have become more mainstream,” Dr. Dallek said. “They’re not the only faction within the Republican party, but it’s a dominant one." (at the time - 1960's) Jewish Standard

• (Summary of a book by historian Donald T. Critchlow "When Hollywood was Right") In 1964, California Republicans and the Hollywood Right found themselves once again in a familiar pattern: disarray. Democrats held the governor’s mansion, with Pat Brown’s victory in 1962 over Nixon, and Democrats controlled both houses in the state legislature. As a result, the Democrats were able to push through a progressive social agenda. Nixon’s loss left Republicans split into factions, divisions that were deepened in the following two years by the rapid rise of the hard line right led by the John Birch Society. Formed in 1958 by New England candy manufacturer Robert Welch, the Society attracted considerable support in Southern California. Birchers, as members of the Society were called, continued to believe that domestic communism was a real threat in the United States, going so far as to proclaim that communists controlled 80 to 90 percent of the federal government. Cambridge University Press
• By 1962, the John Birch Society had become a major faction on the American right, especially in California. Richard M. Nixon, running for governor there, denounced the group, called on all Republicans to do the same, and said he wouldn’t endorse any Birchers for political office. Nixon’s reward was an outpouring of right-wing support for his opponent in the Republican primary and anemic support from the right in the general election, which Nixon lost." Wapo (same source as earlier)

Are the Reagan and Rockefeller constituency portions held to this same test? After all, they were from about the same time period.

Along this line of thought, why aren't the Lily-white movement and Black-and-tan faction included here?

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

DN, the Dallek, Critchlow, and Washington Post sources are satisfactory. MonMothma (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The WaPo article fails rs per WP:NEWSORG. The author is a lecturer in communications, not an expert in polisci, sociology or history. But assuming we did use it, it merely says the JBS was a major faction on the "American right," not the Republicn party. Some of them, such as Larry McDonald were Democrats, others had no party involvement.

The faction Critchlow referred to was the "hard line right led by the John Birch Society," not the JBS itself.

Finally, the article in the Jewish Standard also fails rs and the author appears to use the term faction in a loose sense.

You seem to have googled "John Birch Society"+"Republican Party"+"faction" and thrown your hits against the wall to see what sticks.

If you are serious about identifying factions of the Republican Party, get a hold of a book on the party and look for a section on factions. If I recall correctly, most source identify two major factions that have long existed: Main St. and Wall St. The Main St. faction became dominated by radical right-wing ideology. But the JBS was not the only influence. There was also McCarthyism and the National Review. They coalesced to nominate Goldwater. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to have googled "John Birch Society"+"Republican Party"+"faction" and thrown your hits against the wall to see what sticks"

Your "attempts" at trying to belittle my efforts are noted. DN (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Republicans

What happened to the section with the liberal faction of the Republican Party? BlueBlurHog (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

BlueBlurHog, in answer to your question, please see my series of edits dated November 8 of last year. MonMothma (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have fallen into the moderate and Rockefeller categories. DN (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Racial Factions

Hi there! This is the recommended post on the talk page about racial factions. It is necessary to add that section, since there were three uncategorized factions of the Republican Party, all three of which were defined by race. I still see it necessary then to create a separate section, since they are alone otherwise. 108.40.120.49 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary photographs

This page suffers from serious photograph overkill. Most of the politicians listed in factions appear to be entirely arbitrarily selected, and four is far too many. This page should reduce the number of photographs by at least 50%, and likely more. Toa Nidhiki05 06:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The groups of four photos shown for each faction section are unnecessary and a distraction from the text. Being arbitrary, they give undue emphasis to the persons selected, and they have been the cause of constant turnover. The article would be substantially improved without them. Carlstak (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support that as well DN (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I've gone ahead and removed them. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Trumpists aren't "supportive" of Russia

The article states in the section on the Trumpist faction that Trumpists are "generally supportive of Russia." However, the sources that are cited only say that Trump Republicans act friendly and soft-gloved toward Russia. Being friendly and cordial is one thing, but being supportive is another those two things are not equivalent. Saying that Trumpist Republicans are supportive of Russia is misleading. The article should reflect what the sources say, that Trump Republicans are soft on and friendly towards Russia. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

In common English parlance, "supportive" is an accurate description of what the sources say. Trump (and this is about GOP MAGA people) supports Russia over America, believes Russian intelligence over American intelligence, sides with Russia against NATO, sides with Russia against Ukraine, refuses to ever say a negative word about Putin, etc. That's pretty supportive. Are there Republicans who vote for Trump but don't like Russia? Of course, but we go by what the sources say. He aids Putin's MRGA goals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources are all opinion and analysis in news publications which are reliable sources only for opinions attributed to them. Are there any studies by experts that support that view? TFD (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)