RINO - what is it and who isn't?

[Victorian Gray]

Hell, they can't even explain their Idol, Ronnie himself, who tripled the national debt & saved Social Security, engineered amnesty for illegals.

Their whole schtick about Rino's is just groupthink & revisionist history.

They're so convinced of their righteousness that they'll toss anybody overboard who isn't totally with the Faux News program right that minute.

Which is fine by me, because the sooner the Teatards completely marginalize themselves the sooner saner voices can emerge in Republican land. Even Repubs are sick of their shit, particularly their fondness for extortion.

It's the Republican version of Mao's Cultural Revolution right down to the purge of RINOs (running dogs and revisionists). The 'political correctness' being exhibited is actually kind of funny in a sick sort of way. Ideological purity, booyah!

 

[ivwshane]

Well, since a RINO stands for a republican in name only, I would imagine you would first have to define the word "republican" and since "republican" is a person who belings to the Republican Party, I'd think we'd have to look at what the Republican Party stands for.

A republican isn't something each of us define ourselves.


So, according to the current republican platform, what prominent "republicans" don't agree with or don't legislate according to the GOP platform?

Any other talk coming from people's gut and what they think a RINO is, is just pure bullshit.


My guess is that most people calling other republicans RINO's have no idea what the GOP platform is.

 

[schneiderguy]

Any Republican that is not named Ron Paul = RINO.

 

[compuwiz1]

Any Republican that is not named Ron Paul = RINO.

Libertarians don't win elections, so yeah, Ron ran on the Republican tickel, since he's not a left winger.

 

[Genx87]

How do you explain Eisenhower? Nixon? Both were far more liberal and big government-y than modern republicans.

How far back do you want to go? You want to frame this as a liberal vs conservative comparison. When i have already explained how the republican party that has branded itself as the small govt party hasnt been for decades.

 

[fskimospy]

How far back do you want to go?

You mentioned that people who would have been called RINOs in the past now represent the core values of the party, particularly as it relates to the size and scope of government. Presumably you have some rough dates in mind?

I can say that this is not true at least for any time period at least in the last 75 years or so, but maybe you want to go even further back? Hell, Nixon wanted to implement his own version of the ACA.

 

[Genx87]

You mentioned that people who would have been called RINOs in the past now represent the core values of the party, particularly as it relates to the size and scope of government. Presumably you have some rough dates in mind?

I can say that this is not true at least for any time period at least in the last 75 years or so, but maybe you want to go even further back? Hell, Nixon wanted to implement his own version of the ACA.

Right, like I said in my first post. Who knows. The people branded as RINO's represent the core values of the party and have for decades.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, like I said in my first post. Who knows. The people branded as RINO's represent the core values of the party and have for decades.

My question is when did the party EVER represent that type of conservatism?

 

[Newell Steamer]

RINOs, plants, baiters,.. etc. etc.

The liberals are stupid, yet clever and mastermindful enough to lure out the bad behavior of conservatives and fool everyone into thinking a crazed conservative is actually a liberl pretending to be a loon.

Which is it guys? Are we dumb as bricks or deceptive as the CIA??

 

[fskimospy]

RINOs, plants, baiters,.. etc. etc.

The liberals are stupid, yet clever and mastermindful enough to lure out the bad behavior of conservatives and fool everyone into thinking a crazed conservative is actually a liberl pretending to be a loon.

Which is it guys? Are we dumb as bricks or deceptive as the CIA??

Not only that, but they are also devious enough to trick America (which at its heart truly agrees with conservatives on everything) into electing them in to all sorts of offices all the time.

In my experience whether liberals are naive idiots or devious masterminds depends entirely on what conservatives need to do in order to justify their current position.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

All NeoCons are RINOs, but not all RINOs are NeoCons.

I think NeoCons are far, far worse for the country and the republican party than most non-NeoCon RINOs.

For instance, people of the libertarian persuasion that are registered republican could be considered RINOs because they generally have more liberal social views and want fewer laws. NeoCons, though, are hyper socially conservative and generally favor liberal spending to enforce their morals.

NeoCons and Progressives will destroy this country with their attempts to legislate morality.

True republican's want church and state separate. Hence, liberatarian's that disagree with republican social issues are generally more conservative.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, considering that the Repub Party has, over the recent past, conducted purges, witch hunts and some wickedly nasty call-outs among its own, I'd say this bout of "Holier than Thou-ness" in the party has got to run itself out sooner or later, simply as a matter of survival.

I do think the Party is willing to cut off an arm and an unruly cancerous leg of its own in its bid to survive its present dissociative disorder condition, but that would take having to lose a string of elections and perilously alienating itself from anything near what we generally consider "mainstream America". However, it does seem to me that that's where the Repub Party is headed from an outsider looking in perspective.

I had to ask myself this question: "Would the Tea Party, if it ever decided to secede from it's parent Repub Party, be able to win elections all on its own?" In its present form, I really don't think so. They are a known minority within the Repub ranks, yet they hold sway over it like they owned it outright. And to me, it has more to do with them forever challenging the majority over whether the majority are "conservative enough", or loyal enough to do what it takes to "get America back on the right track", whatever that means.

Therein lies the conundrum the Tea Party has afflicted the Repub Party with, and of which this thread is all about: What Repub presidential hopeful would ever dare point themselves out as a RINO in order to win elections and what "Truly Dyed in Red Republican" would ever say to another of its kind that they need to become more like the "enemies of the State" to take America back?

It seems to me the Tea Party has had to continuously set the benchmark further and further right to keep this challenge going in order to keep its hold over the Party proper. And, like a branch extending itself too far out from the trunk, it will break off sooner or later.

I'm just wondering what kind shit storm inside the Repub Party is it going to take to have that branch either break off or have itself get cut off and grafted somewhere else.

 

[QuantumPion]

Hell, they can't even explain their Idol, Ronnie himself, who tripled the national debt & saved Social Security, engineered amnesty for illegals.

Sure we can. It's quite simple. The Democrats controlled the house and the senate during Reagan's presidency. Blaming Reagan for the 80's deficit makes about as much sense as praising Clinton for balancing the budget in the 90's.

 

[QuantumPion]

The definition of RINO is quite simple. If you endorse Democrats and their platforms (particularly amnesty and gun control) over Republicans, you are a RINO.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure we can. It's quite simple. The Democrats controlled the house and the senate during Reagan's presidency. Blaming Reagan for the 80's deficit makes about as much sense as praising Clinton for balancing the budget in the 90's.

I wonder what policies were the largest driver of the increased deficits under Reagan?

 

[QuantumPion]

I wonder what policies were the largest driver of the increased deficits under Reagan?

You don't have to wonder. Luckily, there's this neat new thing called the interweb where you can find out for yourself! Let's look and see!

From: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1980USbn_15bs2n#usgs302

So to summarize - here are the deltas:

Pensions: +104
Health Care: +68
Education: +0
Defense: +162
Welfare: +23
All other Spending: +116
Total: +473

So for every $1 increase of defense spending, there was $2 increase of everything else.

 

[fskimospy]

You don't have to wonder. Luckily, there's this neat new thing called the interweb where you can find out for yourself! Let's look and see!

From: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1980USbn_15bs2n#usgs302

So to summarize - here are the deltas:

Pensions: +104
Health Care: +68
Education: +0
Defense: +162
Welfare: +23
All other Spending: +116
Total: +473

So for every $1 increase of defense spending, there was $2 increase of everything else.

Wow, thanks! I wonder if Reagan enacted any other policies during his tenure that might have had an impact on the federal deficit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure we can. It's quite simple. The Democrats controlled the house and the senate during Reagan's presidency. Blaming Reagan for the 80's deficit makes about as much sense as praising Clinton for balancing the budget in the 90's.

Reagan vetoed a budget resolution when, exactly? And appropriations deviated from the budget he submitted by how much?

I'll answer that last one for you-

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Yep, congress gave him basically what he asked for, every time.

You were saying something about the Democratic Congress of the era... Not that it made sense, but you were saying something that kinda sounded like apologist bullshit.

Oh, and the Senate was Repub for ~half of the Reagan years, just to clarify the point.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Not only that, but they are also devious enough to trick America (which at its heart truly agrees with conservatives on everything) into electing them in to all sorts of offices all the time.

In my experience whether liberals are naive idiots or devious masterminds depends entirely on what conservatives need to do in order to justify their current position.

It's a much more recent way of saying; "The devil made me do it!!".

Or, as far as I am concerned, admitting you are guilty of the very thing you claim to be fighting; lack of morals, lack of ethics, etc.

 

[ivwshane]

Reagan vetoed a budget resolution when, exactly? And appropriations deviated from the budget he submitted by how much?

I'll answer that last one for you-

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Yep, congress gave him basically what he asked for, every time.

You were saying something about the Democratic Congress of the era... Not that it made sense, but you were saying something that kinda sounded like apologist bullshit.

Oh, and the Senate was Repub for ~half of the Reagan years, just to clarify the point.

Come on now! You know using facts against someone fortified behind their bubble isn't a fair fight!

One must preserve the alternate reality of the bubble they live in at all costs otherwise....I don't know; what exactly would happen if their alternate reality came crashing down? I guess they'd become liberals?

 

[Fern]

Well, since a RINO stands for a republican in name only, I would imagine you would first have to define the word "republican" and since "republican" is a person who belings to the Republican Party, I'd think we'd have to look at what the Republican Party stands for.

A republican isn't something each of us define ourselves.


So, according to the current republican platform, what prominent "republicans" don't agree with or don't legislate according to the GOP platform?

Any other talk coming from people's gut and what they think a RINO is, is just pure bullshit.


My guess is that most people calling other republicans RINO's have no idea what the GOP platform is.

I think you'd be correct.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Reagan vetoed a budget resolution when, exactly? And appropriations deviated from the budget he submitted by how much?

I'll answer that last one for you-

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Yep, congress gave him basically what he asked for, every time.

You were saying something about the Democratic Congress of the era... Not that it made sense, but you were saying something that kinda sounded like apologist bullshit.

Oh, and the Senate was Repub for ~half of the Reagan years, just to clarify the point.

Interesting.

Congress (Tip O'Neill etc) and the President were well known to have negotiated difference in private and not engaging legislative dramatics.

Democrats and Progressive constantly criticize Republicans for doing so today, yet want to now criticize Reagan because he didn't back then. Wonderful.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Reagan vetoed a budget resolution when, exactly? And appropriations deviated from the budget he submitted by how much?

I'll answer that last one for you-

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Yep, congress gave him basically what he asked for, every time.

You were saying something about the Democratic Congress of the era... Not that it made sense, but you were saying something that kinda sounded like apologist bullshit.

Oh, and the Senate was Repub for ~half of the Reagan years, just to clarify the point.

Reagan had a rare ability to connect directly with the American people. Proposing things with which the public agreed, he pretty much shamed Congress into following his leads, although of course he never got the domestic cuts he was promised.

It is amusing that Zfacts seems to have lost its outrage about "unprecedented peacetime deficits" after Obama's election though. I suppose there're unprecedented peacetime deficits and unprecedented peacetime deficits, and only the magic "D" lets us know if they are good unprecedented peacetime deficits or bad unprecedented peacetime deficits.

 

[fskimospy]

Reagan had a rare ability to connect directly with the American people. Proposing things with which the public agreed, he pretty much shamed Congress into following his leads, although of course he never got the domestic cuts he was promised.

It is amusing that Zfacts seems to have lost its outrage about "unprecedented peacetime deficits" after Obama's election though. I suppose there're unprecedented peacetime deficits and unprecedented peacetime deficits, and only the magic "D" lets us know if they are good unprecedented peacetime deficits or bad unprecedented peacetime deficits.

I wonder if there were any other differences between Reagan's time in office and Obama's.

For example, I wonder what federal interest rates were at? Just idle questions, really.

 

[cubby1223]

The deal with "RINO" is it is completely subjective to the individual.

It's the same thing for progressives, who get to subjectively declare who is and who is not a true progressive, just there is no formal acronym "DINO" or "PINO".

The general personality of a conservative is that of a follower, while the general personality of a liberal is that of a leader. A conservative leader is a bit of a contradiction in of itself. Conservatives want people to represent their values, it's always easy to find someone who wants to lead other people, it's not easy to find someone who is a strong leader and personally believes in conservative values.

How do you square this with the fact that the Republican Party has become dramatically more conservative over the last 40 years?

I believe this was called out in a previous thread. The Republican Party is not becoming "dramatically more conservative over the last 40 years." You are becoming more liberal.