The Tea Party/Freedom Caucus wing (minus Trump) are the normal Republicans. The establishment wing (which I consider Trump one) aren't.
Says who? A homophobic LIBERTARIAN from Indiana? Jesus Christ.
Sorry if my last sentence got your panties in a wad, it's a commonly used expression.
You know, attacking a guy for homophobia when you're a supporter of a blatantly homophobic party doesn't make you any less of a bigot.
Also, you're acting like a grade school bully, picking on a slightly less popular kid to try and look cooler. It comes off as really juvenile.
That's absolutely ridiculous, and I'm sick of this stupid logic. You're never going to agree with your party on every single issue unless your a mindless foot soldier. Was Hubert H. Humphrey not a civil rights advocate because he was in the party that had most of civil rights' opponents? Is everything FDR did negated because he had a party full of Dixiecrats? Nobody leaves a party over one issue, and that's a good thing for progress.
It certainly damages their legacies. FDR routinely allowed Congress to exclude African Americans from New Deal legislation and interned thousands of Japanese Americans. He was structurally unable to do anything to end the brutal white supremacist segregationist state regimes in the American South. Humphrey had the advantage of being in office a couple decades later, but even he was routinely hampered in his ability to implement policy by the anti-civil rights wing of his party.
I'm not sure if Assemblyman JCL is a member of the Republican Party, but people like him essentially make up the vast majority of your party's membership and voter base. They can and will influence policy. Every candidate's policy positions will be colored by their views, no matter how bigoted they are, and no matter how much you pretend like they don't exist. You can't be a Republican and not be complicit in every policy that the party implements. Politics doesn't work like that.
