Comments frequently get heated with the "we need a new party! Republicans are done!" vs "That will end us! We need to restore the Republicans!" And yes, sometimes it feels quite a lot like the old Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ads but it's an interesting bone of contention. I'm not capable into a deep dive into the pros and cons, but just a couple of surface-level observations which are imo only:

Some will point to the communist takeover of the democrat party as an example of how it will work (ha ha, dems have always been commies!)... BUT imo it would not be as effective because the democrats slogan on being "progressive" which makes it harder for them to resist such takeovers. By that same token, a so-called "conservative" GOP will by its own self-definition aggressively resist a similar takeover.

Creating something new is energizing; fixing something broken might be sensible and a labor of love, but it's hard to gin up broad enthusiasm. To pull a clumsy example out of the air, have you ever heard of an Amish barn raising? Now, have you ever heard of an Amish barn repainting?

Why not both? A new party will take time and energy but among the things PDJT taught us, it's that you can work within the existing system while simultaneously creating something new. Look at the military and the creation of Space Force. So we can certainly push MAGA candidates within the Republican party but simultaneously begin founding their new home. I think this is important because it will give young upstarts a chance to cut their teeth in politics until the Patriot (or whatever its name is) Party is ready to lay waste to communism and faggotry.