The "RINO" Thread

[Si modo]

And lose 40%...

This math is not going well.

40% of the party do not mix religious beliefs with politics.
If it is then we should lose as the other 60% will leave anyway.
And for good reason as religion has no place in politics be it Republican or Democrat.
Those 40% need to leave and form their own party if that is the case.
Because with them, and I believe it to be more like 15-20% if that, we lose every time.
Why?
The Founders understood why.

You live in Georgia...how many voters would stay home in Georgia rather than vote for a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro-gun control candidate?

Be honest.

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

 

[nodoginnafight]

This thread describes me perfectly. A solid Republican voter for 20 years who detests the way the far right is destroying the party. It's not my party anymore, so those of you who are left in the GOP will have to figure it out on your own.

But I'm just telling you ... if you want voters like me (and apparently there are quite a few of us) to start considering Republican candidates again, you're going to have to stop kissing the far right's ass.

The Republicans have idiots on the far right - The Democrats have idiots on the far left. The silent majority in the U.S. is a moderate majority. I don't believe you can afford to continue to hemorrhage moderate in order to appease the far right. I don't WANT to see Democrats with unchallenged majorities in the House and Senate and holding the White House. But that is where the far right is leading you.

 

[FJO]

Most moderates describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal.

But they vote against fiscally more conservative positions... does this mean they weigh the social as a greater issue?? If so, this is why I do not side with moderates and more with conservatives and libertarians.. because even though I am socially more centrist, I am extremely conservative fiscally and I realize that the biggest problem is not whether gays marry, it is the financial situation and the size and spending of government...

There was a time when it was unthinkable that there could be marriage between:

Irish and Italian.
Jewish and Gentile.
Catholic and Protestant.
Black and White.

All are not only acceptable now, but cherished and honored. I did not mention Muslim and whoever else because those who would dare to breech that taboo would be subject to the usual violence meted out in Muslim countries to those who dare to breech any taboos there.

Time goes on. Values change. People grow, not only chronologically, but intellectually as well. Just ask the children produced of marriages, unacceptable a few decades ago, I listed, above.

Here I come to the issue of gay marriage. I personally have no problem with it.
But will it ever be accepted as those other marriages I listed?

A few years/decades from now one will not be able ask the children of gay marriage the value of gay marriage because there will be no results/products of gay marriage.

Those children were the product of traditional relationships, but presented to the world as the result of gay marriage. I think there will be a conflict between Nature and Nurture.

 

[elvis]

I'm sorry. I thought this was 2012 not 1994. My mistake.

Now, if you want to talk about 2012 and the 2012 election and the platform he ran on, feel free.

There was a reason why both sides barely made a peep about Romney's time as governor. You know that, right?

I man isn't what he says...he is what he does...whether it's 1622 or 2040.

You're tap dancing around the issue.

Romney was a moderate.

He was much closer to your political philosophy than he was mine.

I supported him anyway, as I believed...and still believe he was a better choice that Obama.

Would you have done the same if a candidate won the primary that was closer to my political philosophy than yours?

Romney's platform was a conservative platform. That the far right sees him as a moderate does not mean that the rest of the country did. Of course, there were many reasons why he lost, but the fact that he was hammered by Obama amongst the moderates suggests that he and the Republican Party were too far right.

I wouldn't have supported Gingrich or Santorum. I might have supported Cain and probably would have voted for Daniels had he run.

edit - and I might have voted for Ron Paul

How did George W ever win?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you want to claim Romney was the same man he was when he was governor in Mass... then kindly 'splain why he turned his back on his own healthcare plan? Why he turned coat on abortion, (or for that matter why his positions on EVERYTHING took a hard right turn)

I'll help you out with a hint: The far right in the GOP DEMANDED it before considering him for the nomination.

You want to take a moderate and turn him far right? Fine ... go ahead. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it too. No one is going to see him as a moderate anymore.

 

[Missourian]

40% of the party do not mix religious beliefs with politics.
If it is then we should lose as the other 60% will leave anyway.
And for good reason as religion has no place in politics be it Republican or Democrat.
Those 40% need to leave and form their own party if that is the case.
Because with them, and I believe it to be more like 15-20% if that, we lose every time.
Why?
The Founders understood why.

You live in Georgia...how many voters would stay home in Georgia rather than vote for a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro-gun control candidate?

Be honest.

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

Would you have politically opposed slavery?

Surely you don't deny that it was a moral issue.

Lincoln, the father of the Republican party, is not remembered for his fiscal policy, but for his moral stand.

 

[Si modo]

You live in Georgia...how many voters would stay home in Georgia rather than vote for a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro-gun control candidate?

Be honest.

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

Would you have politically opposed slavery?

Surely you don't deny that it was a moral issue.

Lincoln, the father of the Republican party, is not remembered for his fiscal policy, but for his moral stand.

I remember him (from studies, of course) as the POTUS who has come closer than anyone to destroying this nation.

 

[FJO]

As soon as the RNC picked Romney to be their candidate; I knew Obama would win the election.

What the Republicans need is a Reaganesque type of individual who is a real conservative.

And who is a true leader and flag bearer of conservative views and values.

As soon as I saw the inordinately high number of insanely and thoroughly egotistical and delusional Republican "contenders" I knew Obama would win.

A bruising and cruel primary was in the offing, while Obama and Axelrod snickered and enjoyed it in the background.

All those "contenders" should have gone in a large room, somewhere, toss dice, play elimination chess/scrabble/boxing match, draw cards, or choose any other legal method to arrive with ONE contender, thereby saving millions of dollars on primaries and untold electoral damage by screwing each other.

And as it turned out, THEMSELVES.

November 6th, 2012 might have turned out differently.

Obama was the incumbent with NO opposition.
Mickey Mouse could have received more votes than Obama with his 4 year record of nothing if Obama was not the incumbent.
Obama ran on nothing because he could.

All along I was hoping and wishing that a Democrat with even the slightest bit of decency and honesty, not to mention COURAGE, would start a primary against a clearly incompetent pretender. No such luck. Democrats are scared about being called racists, and, so, Obama sailed thru with no challenge.

Seeing the spineless Democrat jackals clamoring for 2016, I feel more confident about the chances of the Republicans.

And it will be boasted by the results of the 2014 midterms, by which time the incumbents will have become over confident and arrogant, which, in all fairness, happens to every party.

 

[elvis]

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

Would you have politically opposed slavery?

Surely you don't deny that it was a moral issue.

Lincoln, the father of the Republican party, is not remembered for his fiscal policy, but for his moral stand.

I remember him (from studies, of course) as the POTUS who has come closer than anyone to destroying this nation.

You have really surprised me the last few days, modo.

 

[rightwinger]

Two huge wedge issues there - abortion and gun control. Both exist and aren't going anywhere.

How about a candidate who just doesn't give a shit about legislating morality and cares about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and national security?

Would you have politically opposed slavery?

Surely you don't deny that it was a moral issue.

Lincoln, the father of the Republican party, is not remembered for his fiscal policy, but for his moral stand.

I remember him (from studies, of course) as the POTUS who has come closer than anyone to destroying this nation.

Actually, it was James Madison who came closest to destroying the country

 

[GoneBezerk]

Democraps have the left-wing locked up in this country as well as the freeloaders, nuts and idiots among their lemming voting class....so the GOP needs to stick together as moderates and conservatives.

Democraps would love for moderates and conservatives to form their own parties, since that would ensure this country is fucked faster than they could dream.

The Paulbots that stayed home or voted for some kook nominee instead of Romney are to blame for the next 4 years of destruction as much as the liberals that put the idiot back in the White House.

You are either for the GOP or for the Democraps, any other party is a waste of time and a joke.

 

[Rocko]

Next, math. According to FoxNews exit polls, moderates were 45% of the electorate in the 2012 Presidential election and voted for Obama over Romney, 56% to 41%. With 130 million Americans voting, that is a deficit of nearly 9 million voters. Obama beat Romney by 5 million votes.

Romney WAS a moderate.

This fact tumbles the RINO house of cards...and should steer the conversation in an entirely different direction.

Exactly!

 

[Missourian]

If you want to claim Romney was the same man he was when he was governor in Mass... then kindly 'splain why he turned his back on his own healthcare plan? Why he turned coat on abortion, (or for that matter why his positions on EVERYTHING took a hard right turn)

I'll help you out with a hint: The far right in the GOP DEMANDED it before considering him for the nomination.

You want to take a moderate and turn him far right? Fine ... go ahead. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it too. No one is going to see him as a moderate anymore.

Yet another reason he lost.

The right didn't "turn him" anywhere. He turned himself.

We didn't believe him.

 

[FJO]

As soon as the RNC picked Romney to be their candidate; I knew Obama would win the election.

What the Republicans need is a Reaganesque type of individual who is a real conservative.

And who is a true leader and flag bearer of conservative views and values.

Which 2012 candidate would have been Reaganesque?

Todays Republicans would consider Reagan to be too moderate

OK, just for the chuckles: Rick Perry, whose instant amnesia about which Departments he would close, sent tingles up your legs, since it must have reminded you of Ronald Reagan who well after out of office was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease.

BTW, any of them would have been better than Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

As soon as the RNC picked Romney to be their candidate; I knew Obama would win the election.

What the Republicans need is a Reaganesque type of individual who is a real conservative.

And who is a true leader and flag bearer of conservative views and values.

Which 2012 candidate would have been Reaganesque?

Todays Republicans would consider Reagan to be too moderate

OK, just for the chuckles: Rick Perry, whose instant amnesia about which Departments he would close, sent tingles up your legs, since it must have reminded you of Ronald Reagan who well after out of office was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease.

BTW, any of them would have been better than Obama.

America obviously disagreed

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm with Claudette from the first page with one exception....I do care about abortion and the lives it takes. I'm just not radical about it.

Dunno if that makes me a rhino or not but I'm not leaving the gop either way. Its my fucking party and sooner or later they will focus on real issues instead of all the sideshow carnival shit.

GOP for life.

 

[Shelzin]

Romney WAS a moderate.

This fact tumbles the RINO house of cards...and should steer the conversation in an entirely different direction.

Romney defies that label; he was - depending on who he thought was listening - a conservative, a liberal or pragmatic (moderate). He was always a Plutocrat.

I very much agree with that description....but, when he governed...his track record was very socially liberal.

AND he was overwhelming the choice of Republican moderates.

They, more than anyone else, are responsible for his nomination.

To come back and say "well, moderates didn't vote for this guy over Obama...and that's you social conservatives fault." is hypocrisy of the highest order.

And that's where this whole argument falls apart.

The Moderates got exactly what and who they wanted.

How exactly is that being "excluded from the party"?

Um... He was a moderate governor. TRUE.

He didn't run as a moderate presidential candidate however.

It's why a shit load of people, myself included, who called him a flip flopper. We didn't know where the hell he stood. Obviously you didn't know where he stood either. Or can you tell me what he was moderate on when he was running for president?

Pretty easy when he was governor... But the man didn't agree with himself when he was governor.

 

[Rocko]

Next, math. According to FoxNews exit polls, moderates were 45% of the electorate in the 2012 Presidential election and voted for Obama over Romney, 56% to 41%. With 130 million Americans voting, that is a deficit of nearly 9 million voters. Obama beat Romney by 5 million votes.

Romney WAS a moderate.

This fact tumbles the RINO house of cards...and should steer the conversation in an entirely different direction.

Romney ran on

- cutting taxes
- cutting spending
- increasing defense spending
- closer ties with Israel and a more hard line on Iran
- repeal Obamacare

He also picked as his running mate the guy whose signature item is a radical restructuring of Medicare designed to limit spending on healthcare.

What was moderate about that? That may look moderate to the far right but it looks conservative to everyone else.

Firts of all all of those things he ran on were good things. You wanted him to run on shunning Israel, keeping Obamacare, cutting defense, raising taxes, increasing spending?

Romney is a moderate because he has a track record of being a moderate and doing business with the other side.

Obama did not win because of the issues, well actually, he won on one issue, which was free stuff.

 

[Rocko]

Romney defies that label; he was - depending on who he thought was listening - a conservative, a liberal or pragmatic (moderate). He was always a Plutocrat.

I very much agree with that description....but, when he governed...his track record was very socially liberal.

AND he was overwhelming the choice of Republican moderates.

They, more than anyone else, are responsible for his nomination.

To come back and say "well, moderates didn't vote for this guy over Obama...and that's you social conservatives fault." is hypocrisy of the highest order.

And that's where this whole argument falls apart.

The Moderates got exactly what and who they wanted.

How exactly is that being "excluded from the party"?

Um... He was a moderate governor. TRUE.

He didn't run as a moderate presidential candidate however.

It's why a shit load of people, myself included, who called him a flip flopper. We didn't know where the hell he stood. Obviously you didn't know where he stood either. Or can you tell me what he was moderate on when he was running for president?

Pretty easy when he was governor... But the man didn't agree with himself when he was governor.

Everyone's giving the voters too much credit. Most voters don't even know or understand the issues. And that's really the main reason why Obama got re-elected.

 

[g5000]

The GOP lost because a lot of people who would have voted Republican decided to stay home.

I am one of them.

Obama did not win because Obama is a great President. He's an incompetent, blundering, idiot. This fact is staring the GOP right in the face.

And so the question is, how did the GOP lose to such a loser?

They tell themselves it is because Obama acted like Santa Claus. This is how they continue to delude themselves. They ignore their own Santa-like behaviors.

However, the truth is that they have become worse than a guy like Obama. But they spent so much time inventing things about Obama, like his Kenyan birth and that last-minute desperate "Obama watched while they died", they have no idea who the real Obama is that beat them. They are shooting at a ghost of their imagination. And that is why they got beaten.

This is an honest to God conundrum the GOP built around itself. It is trapped in its own self-built delusion.

The fact is the GOP has completely compromised its principles. They don't even see their own hypocrisy any more. This is what really frightens me about the GOP. The astronomical amounts of energy required to maintain their deliberate, willful blindness to their own lies and hypocrisy.

And then there is the sheer hate and pessimism. The GOP was the party that lifted us out of the malaise of the 70s with talk about a "shining city on a hill". Today, it's all piss and vinegar. The party is a pile of maggots now. Hateful, evil, lying, maggots.

I am a man without a party and very nearly without a country. I look at the liberals and I look at the self-avowed modern "conservatives", and I see a distinction without a difference. They are both trying to carry us on a course to totalitarianism. The flags are different colors, that's all.

Fuck 'em both.

.