EPTOn November 02 2017 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
So is it fair to say that the not-RINO's and not-principled conservatives, are in fact the RIF's, or are the RIF's an ethereal /imagined group?
Or to get back to the original question without the presumption; Who are the Republicans In Fact?
Show nested quote +
On November 02 2017 08:43 xDaunt wrote:
The problem here is that you keep looking at it as a dichotomy between RINOs and “very principled conservatives.” What I have been saying is that there is a third category of republicans who are just “conservatives.” These people aren’t as principled as someone like a Rand Paul (meaning that they are more likely to deviate from expressed conservative values), but they aren’t quite bad enough to be RINOs (meaning they don’t deviate or shit on their own party as frequently as a McCain or a Flake).
Again, I am not prepared to categorize every national republican into these three categories, but there clearly is nothing logically inconsistent with how I have been framing this.
On November 02 2017 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
See edit^
Also this is why I can't help you on this one. We got as far as you justifying those comments by saying you disagreed with my framing, but didn't explain how your framing was better at identifying who isn't a RINO.
You say it's better (without providing a reason why or at what) to just focus on who is a RINO, but the whole point was to figure out who the "Republicans" they were imitating "in name only" were.
Where we ended up is that there are quite a few RINOs, 1 conservative you can name off the top of your head (feel free to add some now that you've had some time to think if any others exist in your opinion) and the rest of the Republican party.
If they aren't RINOs, and they aren't Conservatives (this is what you've said) then what are they? My contention was that they are Republicans I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming.
Kwarks interpretation is pretty much the only one left, though I'm open for you to clarify what I'm not understanding.
On November 02 2017 08:26 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like I screwed up the linking by adding too many #:
First one.
Second one.
On November 02 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
Maybe it's my browser or something, but those don't link to what you're claiming they do. We never really finished that conversation though, so I can't defend you on this one.
On November 02 2017 08:11 xDaunt wrote:
This is why you're a dishonest joke. You don't even cite right the posts. You take everything out of context. And I knew that you would do it, too, which is why I edited my original post and added the precise citations.
On November 02 2017 07:14 KwarK wrote:
You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it.
At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion.
On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it.
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it.
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives.
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives.
On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research.
On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's?
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's?
I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research.
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
On October 31 2017 10:16 xDaunt wrote:
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs.
The Bushes are the patriarchs of RINOs.
You keep playing "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!?" as if you have any shred of credibility with anyone here and I just don't understand why. You try to lie your way out of naked lies and it never works and yet you still keep trying to do it.
At a certain point it's not even gaslighting, it's just delusion.
This is why you're a dishonest joke. You don't even cite right the posts. You take everything out of context. And I knew that you would do it, too, which is why I edited my original post and added the precise citations.
On November 02 2017 06:51 xDaunt wrote:
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it?
Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here.
On November 02 2017 06:48 KwarK wrote:
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
On November 02 2017 06:44 xDaunt wrote:
This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.
On November 02 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests
[quote]
Maybe the right needs fewer purity tests
This statement belies such a shitty understanding of the conservative posters (and conservatism in general) in this thread that I don't even know where to begin.
You've spent the last week insisting that the majority of conservative politicians aren't real conservatives. We all saw you. Hell, you said the last conservative president before Trump wasn't a real conservative.
No, you all did not "see" any of that. You imagined it. And I already clarified what I said twice -- once for GH and once for one of the other mods. Why am I not surprised that you are the one who still doesn't get it?
Just to cut to the chase: Look here and here.
Maybe it's my browser or something, but those don't link to what you're claiming they do. We never really finished that conversation though, so I can't defend you on this one.
Looks like I screwed up the linking by adding too many #:
On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy.
On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only?
On October 31 2017 09:52 xDaunt wrote:
I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives.
On October 31 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question?
While I can't be surprised by, and I appreciate the answers, Any chance someone who seriously uses the term answers the question?
I use RINO to label all of the republicans who promised and then failed to deliver big conservative policy objectives.
If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only?
I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy.
First one.
On October 31 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:
Like I told GH a few posts ago, you are conflating two distinct concepts. That a republican is not a “very principled conservative” does not mean that he is a RINO.
On October 31 2017 10:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Don't you agree that 'republican in name only' is a bit of a misnomer if there basically are no republicans that aren't republicans in name only? I mean I know you said 'not saying that they aren't out there', but it seems like you consider a vast majority of republicans republicans in name only. Isn't it more appropriate to adjust your opinion of what being 'a republican' constitutes?
On October 31 2017 10:18 xDaunt wrote:
I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research.
On October 31 2017 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's?
On October 31 2017 10:11 xDaunt wrote:
I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy.
On October 31 2017 10:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only?
[quote]
If Rand Paul is who you view as the closest to exemplifying conservative values/policy on the national political scene, and "RINO" references Republicans that don't vote/legislate conservative policy, is it fair to say you are saying Rand Paul is an example of the Republican that others are imitating in name only?
I think you're conflating a couple different concepts. I singled Rand Paul out as a particularly principled conservative (and just to be clear, I singled him out as such because he is principled, not necessarily because I agree with his version of conservatism on all points). RINOs are people who espouse conservative principles while on the campaign trail and then do "other stuff" while in Washington. I think there has to be an element of hypocrisy.
Can you point to examples (other than Rand Paul) of not-RINO's?
I’d have to think about it. None really comes to mind immediately. Not saying that they aren’t out there, but I’d have to give the question some thought and research.
Don't you agree that 'republican in name only' is a bit of a misnomer if there basically are no republicans that aren't republicans in name only? I mean I know you said 'not saying that they aren't out there', but it seems like you consider a vast majority of republicans republicans in name only. Isn't it more appropriate to adjust your opinion of what being 'a republican' constitutes?
Like I told GH a few posts ago, you are conflating two distinct concepts. That a republican is not a “very principled conservative” does not mean that he is a RINO.
Second one.
See edit^
Also this is why I can't help you on this one. We got as far as you justifying those comments by saying you disagreed with my framing, but didn't explain how your framing was better at identifying who isn't a RINO.
You say it's better (without providing a reason why or at what) to just focus on who is a RINO, but the whole point was to figure out who the "Republicans" they were imitating "in name only" were.
Where we ended up is that there are quite a few RINOs, 1 conservative you can name off the top of your head (feel free to add some now that you've had some time to think if any others exist in your opinion) and the rest of the Republican party.
If they aren't RINOs, and they aren't Conservatives (this is what you've said) then what are they? My contention was that they are Republicans I'm still trying to understand what you're claiming.
Kwarks interpretation is pretty much the only one left, though I'm open for you to clarify what I'm not understanding.
The problem here is that you keep looking at it as a dichotomy between RINOs and “very principled conservatives.” What I have been saying is that there is a third category of republicans who are just “conservatives.” These people aren’t as principled as someone like a Rand Paul (meaning that they are more likely to deviate from expressed conservative values), but they aren’t quite bad enough to be RINOs (meaning they don’t deviate or shit on their own party as frequently as a McCain or a Flake).
Again, I am not prepared to categorize every national republican into these three categories, but there clearly is nothing logically inconsistent with how I have been framing this.
So is it fair to say that the not-RINO's and not-principled conservatives, are in fact the RIF's, or are the RIF's an ethereal /imagined group?
Or to get back to the original question without the presumption; Who are the Republicans In Fact?
This is making my head hurt. What I have done is identify and label three types republicans: very principled conservatives, conservatives, and RINOs. Definitionally, the RINOs and very principled conservatives are the exceptions to the regular conservatives, which the vast majority of republicans are. These conservatives are probably what you are labeling as “republicans in fact.”
