It's better to lose than to win with RINOs

from JoeUser Forums

It is better that we lose to the Democrats than a Republican win with RINOs. RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, it refers to liberals who are chosen by the republican party as their candidates, that is done because republicans have been operating under the quite flawed policy that stated "Pick the most conservative candidate that can win". So they will pick a highly liberal candidate who is slightly less liberal than the opponent to run in liberal states, for the purpose of securing a Republican victory.

This is a disastrous policy!

Neither history books nor the man on the street knows whether the conservatives or liberals are in power... what they know and record is which party is in power. With RINOs you can have the utterly disastrous situation of a Republican majority, but a conservative minority. Where a republican congress is passing things like bail outs, hand outs, pork, spending, tax hikes, nationalization, and other socialist and harmful legislation. People will look and see mounting debt and spending and will say "gee, conservatives don't know how to manage the economy". Even though it is not conservatives, it is a republican congress with a liberal majority.

We need to have blame properly assigned. If the republicans win the coming election with RINOs than they will NOT be able to fix anything, and will take blame for a continuously worsening economy, and then in 2012 democrats will come back into power. Sure, it will be disastrous for Democrats to remain in power for 2 more years... but it will be better in the long term. We could properly assign blame, people and history books will show that socialism, uncontrolled spending, and rising taxes harm the economy, and we could properly take control in 2012 and actually fix the problems we face.

While the above is the biggest issue and reason to lose rather then win with RINOs, it is not the only reason. The other is that the endorsement of RINOs is seen as a betrayal of conservative principles, it leads people to say that "the two parties are really mostly the same" and results in conservatives who simply refuse to vote at all. It reduces the trust of people in the republican party, as they are seen as sellouts who care nothing for the people's plight, only for their own personal authority.

politics
10,709 views 18 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree.  One of the things that made Reagan's Presidency so effective was the Blue Dog Democrats (now almost extinct).  They were conservative democrats, and had the same goals as Reagan.

As soon as I heard Castle's stands, I threw him under the bus.  While I cannot vote in Delaware, I saw no reason for the Republicans to get a majority if he was part of it (and besides, he may have done a Jeffords/Specter number).

I especially found your comment about the "American on the street" impression to be inciteful.  While Obama is trying to say the Republicans are the reason for all the ills, most Americans are not that stupid.  They can count and see that democrats have all the power and do not need them (and indeed have treated them with contempt).

O'Donnel may not win, but she is the first candidate I have donated to.  I just wish we had some like her, Miller, Angle and Rubio in my state.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

The thing is, if conservatives do get elected and start correcting things you know that Obama will take the credit.  Just like how we hear all the time that Bill Clinton balanced the budget.  The President has limited power on balancing the budget so who were those people in Congress.

If Obama does take the credit, 2012 is so ways away...... He could get another term.   If he doesn't win, I want a true conservative.  One who really knows what Americans want and when to give the finger and a punch to the face when getting a thumb to the nose. 

Maybe, some day our government will tighten its belt just like how the rest of us have been tightening our belts and losing some weight.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The thing is, if conservatives do get elected and start correcting things you know that Obama will take the credit.  Just like how we hear all the time that Bill Clinton balanced the budget.  The President has limited power on balancing the budget so who were those people in Congress.

I know, but its easier to argue "congress controls the purse strings, and things were horrible under obama + dem congress, and got better under obama + rep congress". Much easier sell then "when it was obama with a republican congress that was actually liberal controlled congress because the republicans suck so bad they can't even properly represent themselves and select RINOs, which are really democrats with a republican label".

Also, for anyone who honestly believes in liberalism, it is better for the republicans to win than to elect blue dogs (heh, RINOs and DINOs)... But I honestly prefer they don't (since hardcore liberals ruin countries). I can see some need for blue dogs since blue dogs are basically libertarians, they are fiscally conservative (low taxes, etc) but socially liberal (eg: abortion, gay marriage, etc) if I understand correctly (someone correct me if I am wrong on that)

@Dr Guy, did you mean insightful (full of insight, can be found in the dictionary) or inciteful (meant to incite... aka, trolling. not in the dictionary)

I want to clarify that "man in the street" is not meant as an insult or a put down... I myself was exactly this sort of man on the street until I began investing a whole lot of time into the issue, and I still find it really damn hard to know at a glance who is a RINO and who isn't. What I really know is who is the party in power (or how the two parties share power), and that takes going out and counting Dems and Reps in the senate and house (just president isn't enough).

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know, but its easier to argue "congress controls the purse strings, and things were horrible under obama + dem congress, and got better under obama + rep congress".

It is why Clinton went from 43 to 49% of the vote between 92 and 96.

@Dr Guy, did you mean insightful (full of insight, can be found in the dictionary) or inciteful (meant to incite... aka, trolling. not in the dictionary)

:grin: Damn spell checker!  yes I did.  But then your article is citeful as well! ;)

I want to clarify that "man in the street" is not meant as an insult or a put down...

I know, it is just a statement of fact.  Most people do not pay close attention to politics and are vulnerable to a silver tongue and a well stated lie.  But not an obvious lie. 

As for Rinos - I take the view as the author of "The Ruling Class".  In other words, many conservatives went to Washington as conservatives.  But living there turned them into RINOs

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I don't see why Republican ideological purity (as defined by whom?) has anything to do with whether someone should get elected or not.

Of course the GOP can plan for defeat and refuse to run "RINO". But what is a RINO? Was Lincoln a RINO? Or was he the definition of a Republican? Which Republican today is most like Lincoln? And is he a RINO or a true Republican?

Look at the Tea Party, look at some of their people. Are Ron and Rand Paul really ideal Republicans? (Do Republicans accept funding from neonazis? Since when?)

To undo Obama's and the Democrats' mistakes, America needs a government somewhat more right-wing than Obama and the Democrats. But America does not need a choice between extremist conservatives and socialism.

If America really has to choose between Democrats more left-wing than Obama and true Republicans who believe in Creationism, I cannot envision a bright future for the country either way.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

But what is a RINO?

You seem to thin kit is some kind of pejorative, and it is not.  Simply put, the republican platform is for small government.  So how many have bene voting that way in recent years?  The ones that do not are called RINOs because while they are affiliated with the party, they do not adhere to the party platform.  Some may make the case that they have deceived the electorate by campaigning one way and then voting another.

As for Lincoln, I would have to see what the party platform was in 1860 before commenting on whether he was or was not.  As I was not around, it really does not make a big deal of difference to me now. 

(Do Republicans accept funding from neonazis? Since when?)

No, but democrats do (Sheehan anyone?)

rue Republicans who believe in Creationism,

You are falling for the MSM trap.  Some republicans do believe that, but I defy you to find it in the party platform.  You are listening to the hype and not going beyond it. And seeking the truth for yourself.

Creationist have voted republican because their platform is closer to what some creationist believe (some vote democrat).  The Media is trying to assign guilt through support.  In other words, only the republicans are now who votes for them, instead of standing for something and having different people vote for the position.  A politician can only be responsible for their actions, not the actions of their voters.

The Tea Party has nothing to do with religion.  It has every thing to do with a basic principal of small government.  That is what scares both the Republicans, Democrats, and the MSM.  They are not some monolithic cult that can be (although the MSM is trying to) be dismissed based upon the views of some members of it.  If that scares you (smaller government), then yes, I guess you should be concerned.  For the battle now is between Obama leftists (the only thing farther left is the communists and then not by much - read his writings and his comments) and small government Tea Partiers.  In one respect you are right.  What we have now is a compromise and no one says it is working.  So it will change.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

You seem to thin kit is some kind of pejorative, and it is not.  Simply put, the republican platform is for small government.

But if you define Republican values as they are today, the term RINO means nothing, because those valued can change again.

Lincoln was a founder of the Republican party. His philosophy should matter.

 

No, but democrats do (Sheehan anyone?)

And Ron Paul does.

 

You are falling for the MSM trap.  Some republicans do believe that, but I defy you to find it in the party platform.  You are listening to the hype and not going beyond it. And seeking the truth for yourself.

I was referring to the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The most vocal Tea Party candidated seem to be Creationists.

 

Creationist have voted republican because their platform is closer to what some creationist believe (some vote democrat).  The Media is trying to assign guilt through support.  In other words, only the republicans are now who votes for them, instead of standing for something and having different people vote for the position.  A politician can only be responsible for their actions, not the actions of their voters.

No, but if he supports nonsense to gain votes, I cannot respect the politician.

 

The Tea Party has nothing to do with religion.  It has every thing to do with a basic principal of small government.  That is what scares both the Republicans, Democrats, and the MSM.  They are not some monolithic cult that can be (although the MSM is trying to) be dismissed based upon the views of some members of it.  If that scares you (smaller government), then yes, I guess you should be concerned.

The Tea Party is whatever calls itself Tea Party and isn't rejected by the rest of the Tea Party. I have seen many complete nutters run under the Tea Party name. What started as a movement against Obama has evolved into a movement that allows everyone on the fringe to have a say. And that will cost the GOP dearly.

 

 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

But if you define Republican values as they are today, the term RINO means nothing, because those valued can change again.

Lincoln was a founder of the Republican party. His philosophy should matter.

1.  Yes, and a RINO can become a democrat - or a real republican.  Specter chose the former.  However, it is not our problem when they become RINOs if we decide to toss them since they betrayed their constituency.

2. Politics is not religion.  The issues of 1860 are not the issues of 2010.  We can thank him for his contributions, criticize him for his faults.  But what he wanted would only matter if we had the same issues and his solutions were going to work or not.  Clearly some of his ideals are worthy of praise, but most of his views are irrelevant today.

I was referring to the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The most vocal Tea Party candidated seem to be Creationists.

So was I.  And my challenge still stands.

No, but if he supports nonsense to gain votes, I cannot respect the politician.

Again, s/he is responsible for their actions, not that of their voters.  And if you dissect every stand of every politician, you would wind up supporting none.  As none stand with you 100% of the time.  That is a truism.

The Tea Party is whatever calls itself Tea Party and isn't rejected by the rest of the Tea Party. I have seen many complete nutters run under the Tea Party name. What started as a movement against Obama has evolved into a movement that allows everyone on the fringe to have a say. And that will cost the GOP dearly.

No, you are wrong.  The Tea party was and is a revolt against TARP and all the other bailouts (anti-capitalism).  Obama got the heat because he was elected, but the Party was coming regardless since it was voted in by Bush.  The Tea Party is very definitive in its platforms.  But those planks do not cover the entire political gamut of issues.  Nor does the Tea Party - as a whole - care about the other issues except what they carry as their personal beliefs.

So by the same token, you can find those carrying those non-core beliefs in any party.  Anti-Gay Rights?  Check out the Blue Dog Democrats.  How about pro-gay rights?  Try the Log Cabin folks.  Again, by your pigeon holing, the 2 groups mentioned above should be in the opposite parties, but they have core beliefs that put them in the democrat and republican parties that transcend that single issue.  And you have creationists that are alive and well in both the democrat and republican party.

The difference is again, you listen to the MSM and stopped questioning as soon as you heard the code words.  No one is denying that the Tea Party has a lot of "creationist" within their ranks.  That is because they are normally fiscally conservative.  but back to Logic 101.  just because most creationists are fiscally conservative, does not mean that most fiscally conservative are creationists.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 6
I don't see why Republican ideological purity (as defined by whom?) has anything to do with whether someone should get elected or not.

My point is that ALL parties and ALL people will benefit if parties stuck to their platform. You could correlate policy and result. Whether someone should be elected is not the question, the question is whether a party platform should mean anything. The liberals COULD prove us wrong if their policy is really sound, or we COULD prove them wrong with our policy is sound. By properly counting liberals and conservatives we could properly associate spending rates, tax rates, etc with different parties.

If I see an R or a D next to someone, he or she better be a conservative / liberal (respectively). As a fiscal conservative I am worried that democrats will take credit for the benefits of policy they oppose, and republicans get blamed for policies they oppose (because I believe that the conservative policy is the correct one). Anyone who believes liberal policy to be correct would be worried about the opposite (aka, democrats receiving blame for the actions of republicans, and republicans receiving credit for the actions of democrats). No matter what policy you think will work, you should be in favor of correctly and honestly assigning credit/blame.

If America really has to choose between Democrats more left-wing than Obama and true Republicans who believe in Creationism, I cannot envision a bright future for the country either way.

Who says true republicans believe in creationism, show me where it is in the party platform? Be aware that creationism is not "belief in a god, a creator" (just as "progressive" is anything but and "Scientology" is not a science but a church). Creationism is a group that believes that "theory of evolution" (a name they incorrectly assign ALL science) causes atheism, that atheism is the root of all evil, and that by spreading LIES about science they could discredit evolution and preserve the faith of people. The fact that they use LIES is why their staunchest opponents are devout Christians... people who believe that such lies are wrong.

besides, a true republican believes in the constitution. The constitution specifies a separation of church and state...

What is the Tea Party? the tea party can be best defined through their platform, called "contract from america"

http://www.thecontract.org/

  • Protect the Constitution
  • Reject Cap & Trade
  • Demand a Balanced Budget
  • Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
  • Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
  • End Runaway Government Spending
  • Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
  • Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
  • Stop the Pork
  • Stop the Tax Hikes

    • It is a clear and concise list... and notice that nowhere does it mention creationism. There will be all kinds of people supporting the Tea Party. I have seen some talk radio hosts say that "this is about god". I disagree, it is about freedom. The Tea Party is full of people of every color, gender, age, and religion. Actually, amusingly I attended some rallies with a group of friends and none of us was a Caucasian or Christian (most of us are atheists)... and I didn't see any rich white men amongst the speakers either.

    To say that "true republicans are creationists" is like saying "true democrats are in favor of segregation, jim crowly laws, and the KKK"

    Anyways, in the VERY short term (next 2 years) it will be better to have a republican victory at all cost... but a republican victory with RINOs is a pyrric victory. it will be disasterous in the long term. We could end up with 2 years of further economic failure due to a socialist majority in congress, and having it blamed on the republican party because it was the party in control. Both democrats and republicans need to clean house. Anyone who doesn't conform to the party platform is more then welcome to run as an independent.

    Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

    the whole creationist angle is a just posioning the wall fallacy.

    Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

    the whole creationist angle is a just posioning the wall fallacy.

    Call it what you will but I couldn't vote for a Creationist just because Creationism is not part of the GOP platform and not necessarily supported by all Tea party candidates.

    As long as the Tea Party doesn't distance itself from the Creationists and the Paulians, I cannot support them.

     

    To say that "true republicans are creationists" is like saying "true democrats are in favor of segregation, jim crowly laws, and the KKK"

    That may be. Yet my opinion of the Democratic party is certainly influenced by their traditional support for segregation just like my opinion of the Republican party is influenced by their current fascination with stupid Creationist candidates.

     

    There will be all kinds of people supporting the Tea Party. I have seen some talk radio hosts say that "this is about god". I disagree, it is about freedom. The Tea Party is full of people of every color, gender, age, and religion. Actually, amusingly I attended some rallies with a group of friends and none of us was a Caucasian or Christian (most of us are atheists)... and I didn't see any rich white men amongst the speakers either.

    If the Tea Party find the time to distance themselves from people who primarily advocate policies that are not on that list, I won't have a problem with them any more.

     

    Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

    Call it what you will but I couldn't vote for a Creationist just because Creationism is not part of the GOP platform and not necessarily supported by all Tea party candidates.

    As long as the Tea Party doesn't distance itself from the Creationists and the Paulians, I cannot support them.

    You are quick to "poison" the right, yet I have not seen similar "poisoning" on the left.  Does that mean you would vote for someone on the left regardless of their stated positions?  Clearly the left has as many (perhaps more) poison positions within its ranks (top of the mind - eugenics) as does the right.  Yet that does not "poison" your support of them.  Your litmus test appears to be singular, and as long as someone plays a mouth harp to it, you do not seem to care about actions, just words.

    Republican party is influenced by their current fascination with stupid Creationist candidates.

    Again, you make bold statements, without any over t support.  Some Republican candidates are creationists.  But I see no influence in them other than their vote. Name one plank of the Republican party that is creationist?  Should we have a litmus test on who can now vote for candiates? "If you believe X, you are ineligible to vote!".  Welcome 1984.

    If the Tea Party find the time to distance themselves from people who primarily advocate policies that are not on that list, I won't have a problem with them any more.

    If.....If.....If......  It seems you want them to drive the car before determining where they are going or even starting it.

    Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

    You are quick to "poison" the right, yet I have not seen similar "poisoning" on the left.

    Really? Even though you commented on so many of my blog postings where I wrote about the racists in the Democratic party and why therefor I wouldn't have voted for Obama?

     

    Does that mean you would vote for someone on the left regardless of their stated positions?  Clearly the left has as many (perhaps more) poison positions within its ranks (top of the mind - eugenics) as does the right.

    Yes, but they have had them for a longer time. I am not just now losing them.

    You remind me of the people in the old OS/2 newsgroups who attacked me because I was constantly complaining about OS/2 and never about Windows. It didn't occur to them that I complained about the shortcomings of the product I use, not the product I had already decided against earlier.

     

    Yet that does not "poison" your support of them.  Your litmus test appears to be singular, and as long as someone plays a mouth harp to it, you do not seem to care about actions, just words.

    I'll happily vote for a Creationist if (s)he is against racism (in a real sense, not a politically correct sense).

    But that doesn't mean that I have to abandon one of my positions.

     

    Again, you make bold statements, without any over t support.  Some Republican candidates are creationists.  But I see no influence in them other than their vote. Name one plank of the Republican party that is creationist?  Should we have a litmus test on who can now vote for candiates? "If you believe X, you are ineligible to vote!".  Welcome 1984.

    Are the Paulians a plank of the party yet?

    I have a litmus test for people I might vote for.

     

     

    Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

    Again, you make bold statements, without any over t support. Some Republican candidates are creationists. But I see no influence in them other than their vote. Name one plank of the Republican party that is creationist? Should we have a litmus test on who can now vote for candiates? "If you believe X, you are ineligible to vote!". Welcome 1984.

    The Democrats bank on those petty disagreements to garner votes. One only has to ask themselves when in modern history has a major politician's personal views on evolution or creationism impacted jobs, spending, foreign policy? Keep them focused on something that is of little consequence in the real world then sucker punch them after they have your vote.

    Leauki, you being Jewish should understand that clearly enough. The majority of Jews in the US vote Democrat, and are repeatedly kicked to the curb for their effort. Perhaps some aren't happy if unless they are suffering (in a sense. Bush didn't get their votes either, but IMO had their interests more at heart than Obama has. One might not like moose hunters, but is it wise to overlook the whole package when one is sitting down to a steak dinner?

    Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

    The Democrats bank on those petty disagreements to garner votes. One only has to ask themselves when in modern history has a major politician's personal views on evolution or creationism impacted jobs, spending, foreign policy? Keep them focused on something that is of little consequence in the real world then sucker punch them after they have your vote.

    I am thinking that George W. Bush's views on evolution (he understands it) certainly influenced his understanding of religious fundamentalism and helped him differentiate between normal Muslims and the fundamentalists, a distinction that both those on his right and his left are often incapable of making. (The right often believes that all Muslims are terrorists and that this is a war between Christianity and Islam while the left often believes that all Muslims are by definition innocent and that everything is Israel's or the Jews' fault; also George W. Bush's for liberating Iraq.)

    While many left-wingers thought (for some insane reason) that GWB was a Christian fundamentalist, I realised after one year of his being in office that he was not.

    I happen to think that this is of major consequences.

     

    Leauki, you being Jewish should understand that clearly enough. The majority of Jews in the US vote Democrat, and are repeatedly kicked to the curb for their effort. Perhaps some aren't happy if unless they are suffering (in a sense. Bush didn't get their votes either, but IMO had their interests more at heart than Obama has.

    I totally agree.

    However, that won't convince the large number of moderates for whom Israel is not as important as a public education system that doesn't teach magic and alchemy.

    Reagan got a majority of Jewish votes. But Bush was sold to the Jews as a Christian fundamentalist by the left. For some reason that worked. Many American Jews want to be "intellectuals" and try to agree with other intellectuals. If that surprises you remember that the majority intellectuals will be the ones who decide whom to kill when things go bad. It's safer to agree with them.

    And I am not seeing the stable support for Israel and Iraq in the Tea Party. I do see it among "RINOs" though.

     

    One might not like moose hunters, but is it wise to overlook the whole package when one is sitting down to a steak dinner?

    Obama should have remembered that peace is made by living together, not by seperating people.

     

     

    Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

    Yes, but they have had them for a longer time. I am not just now losing them.

    how long?  I know you know more about America than most living here, but I suspect you just over stepped your knowledge.

    Really? Even though you commented on so many of my blog postings where I wrote about the racists in the Democratic party and why therefor I wouldn't have voted for Obama?

    And we have disagreed on many things there.  Your dislike for the America left is due to one (and a very valid one) concern that does have to do with Racism.  But it is much broader than that and I have differed with you on that.

    You remind me of the people in the old OS/2 newsgroups who attacked me because I was constantly complaining about OS/2 and never about Windows. It didn't occur to them that I complained about the shortcomings of the product I use, not the product I had already decided against earlier.

    This is attacking?  I debate you when I disagree with you, and I congratulate you when I agree with you.  That is an attack?  You really should get some canned "news" shows from the states so you can see what an attack is (another shameless plug - read my Olbermann blog).

    I'll happily vote for a Creationist if (s)he is against racism (in a real sense, not a politically correct sense).

    But that doesn't mean that I have to abandon one of my positions.

    After my previous visit, I got to thinking of one of the ironies of your positions.  I know you love to debate KFC and Lula, but the truth is they are your biggest supporters (as a group).

    I am not a creationist, but like Lula (and KFC used to be), I am a Catholic.  And very conservative.  Creationism does not offend me because they do not make laws (nor will they - but the same cannot be said about racists - look at Byrd and Obama).

    Are the Paulians a plank of the party yet?

    I have a litmus test for people I might vote for.

    The Paulians are not creationists.  They are libertarians.  And I agree with most of their planks.  You will not see a creationist plank with the Tea Party (again it is against their core and most do not care!), but it serves the left well - they use it like a parent uses the boogeyman to a misbehaving child.  Both are pure fiction.

    Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

    (The right often believes that all Muslims are terrorists and that this is a war between Christianity and Islam while the left often believes that all Muslims are by definition innocent and that everything is Israel's or the Jews' fault; also George W. Bush's for liberating Iraq.)

    CNN - 30 mosques in 30 days - Read it.  You will find that the above statement is just a myth created by the MSM for the very purpose you repeated it - to scare people who do not know any better.

    Reagan got a majority of Jewish votes. But Bush was sold to the Jews as a Christian fundamentalist by the left. For some reason that worked. Many American Jews want to be "intellectuals" and try to agree with other intellectuals. If that surprises you remember that the majority intellectuals will be the ones who decide whom to kill when things go bad. It's safer to agree with them.

    Now that is the old Leauki - the one who looks beyond the hype to the truth.  yes, Reagan got it, and the left learned.  They learned that the only way they could win is to lie about the opposition.  And they learned well.  They do it well.  Knowing that, why are you buying ANYTHING the left says with respect to the population of the US or the right?  The truth is in your analysis above (and then taken to its logical conclusion).  The left only knows hate and lies.  And that is why your last statement is rhetorical.  Obama only knows how to separate.  he is American left.