[notJim]

> Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it.

Surely the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 should call into question how large of a subset of the Republican party this represents.

[whatshisface]

Republicans wouldn't elect the Trump that Democrat media outlets show, they would elect the Trump that Republican media outlets show. Listen to a Republican describe Trump and you'll hear about someone a sane person could plausibly vote for. Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? No way! A charismatic business-oriented people's man? You bet!

[lern_too_spel]

> Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien?

If the alternative is a Democrat? You bet.

[whatshisface]

A Republican would probably be willing to vote for a Democrat as Democrats perceive them, but not a Democrat as Republicans perceive them.

[rayiner]

Probably not. I grew up during Clinton’s “welfare to work” and continuing Reagan’s deregulation and trimming federal employment rolls. I always thought it was ridiculous that Republicans called Democrats “socialists.” Now when you have the crowd boo-ing candidates for saying socialism isn’t the answer, I’m not sure Republicans are wrong about what Democrats want. Maybe it was just the shadow of Reagan and Newt Gingrich that kept things on the rails for a couple of cycles.

[lern_too_spel]

Those booing crowds don't even know what socialism is and have likely confused it with Scandinavian-style social democracy. I can count on one hand the number of actual socialists I have ever met in the US, so that position is absolutely fringe.

[fuzz4lyfe]

A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians and whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.

[lern_too_spel]

> A Democrat who sold uranium to Russians

The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell.

> whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.

A fault of association with a womanizing friend of Epstein vs. a fault of actually being a womanizing friend of Epstein's does not seem like a very strong reason. The real reason they voted for Trump is the R next to his name.

[fuzz4lyfe]

>The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell.

Yet millions flowed to her foundation upon the completion of that sale[0], getting paid for something you don't own is worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton...

[lern_too_spel]

Millions flowed to her foundation before the sale, too. Claiming she was paid for that deal is conspiracy theory lunacy, no different from Biblical creationism and climate science denialism. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/