3 ms·
The first term was just as dishonest but not as bold. I still can't believe we had an "alternative facts" moment and that somehow that pales compared to the re
by collingreen 2y ago
The first term was just as dishonest but not as bold.
I still can't believe we had an "alternative facts" moment and that somehow that pales compared to the rest.
- moate 2y agoI think the bigger shift isn't that he wasn't this "bold" the first time, it's that there hadn't been 8 years of his form of politics not only winning but becoming the only viable form of conservatism across the government and electorate in the US. He didn't have "his" people in place to help him the first time because much of the establishment at the time was still Romney/Bush/McCain/McConnell types and they kept a firm hand on the reigns of power and often undercut his ability to do things because they felt like he was an aberration. This time around, there is no "primary opposition" (intraparty conflict) in any meaningful way. He wants, they do, it is truly Trump's party.
- pseudalopex 2y agoThere is not much conservative about this reactionism. And the old guard did not have firm control in Trump's first term. But you're right almost all Republican opposition was eliminated. I would add Trump and his people were unprepared in 2016.