Because they would rather protect an ideology, capitalism. Think about this: if someone says Americans should get “free” healthcare, the reaction is to cry socialism/communism. Whether or not it’s a good idea doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if the person suggesting it doesn’t care about socialism/communism and is only thinking of American citizens’ well being. The irony is that the same party that cries capitalism is the same party that says MAGA. They want a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, and even whine about multiculturalism, yet, they don’t want to raise minimum wage or voluntarily pay Americans more.
1 Like
Probably correct in some sense.
That’s an interesting definition, but one it’s probably hard to argue with generally. I cautioned treco’s use of the term not because they don’t exist, but because the definition of “RINO” has morphed dramatically since the 90s and early 2000s. Right now the term is basically meaningless and often used on people who aren’t Trumpist enough or are considered “moderate” in some way.
There are millions of these people who couldn’t pull the trigger to vote for Trump this time around and I think forcing them out of the GOP essentially leads to the GOPs irrelevance. I’d say “death as we know it” but parties die particularly hard.
I do think that if they are chased out by the Trumpists (don’t have a better word) the GOP will cease to be recognizable compared to past decades.
Yep, I got you and I agree in this sense.
I could agree, but I don’t think either 08 or 16 were fractured nearly as bad as the current GOP. I think this is different in quality and magnitude, but whether the rift is healed through party soul searching, a return to sanity, or split completely in ideological boundaries remains to be seen.
Trump was unique, but what his impact means for the future is a tough question.
Wait, what? Somebody’s got to tell me these things.
2 Likes
I would disagree. The GOP may be out in all 3 houses, but nowhere close to as bad as 2008.
The Democrats, by contrast, have won a victory, but are hopeless divided between their progressive and purple wings. Victory is a bandage on that wound, but the wound is there.
2 Likes
All those people giving you strange looks? That was them telling you.
Rant away. You’re going to need to get it out of your system before spending an entire day with ultra democrats if you hope to keep your sanity! 
I think your comment about immigration can be applied. There are a lot of people who changed stance in the last 20 years with regard to “nation building”, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, but I do have to point out that Reps were pretty in favor of it in past decades. In fact one could say that initially both parties after 9/11 were pretty much good with anything. I would say the opposition to nation building was largely democrat initially, since most GOP were still on board with “give them democracy”.
When I say republican I mean the fiscally conservative, low tax variety.
Agree. I suppose I am commenting about people voting on their campaign platform promises, since we all know they’re doing fuck all once in office.
I do agree people need to be much slower to shout out labels and much quicker to try to assess ideas, but good luck getting that to happen.
Agreed, the term is a waste of time, and should be retired due to overbreadth. Much like Neocon, communist, fascist, Nazi etc.
The seat loss wasn’t nearly as bad as 08. I am thinking ideology here, similar to your progressive/purple comparison. Here I think the rift is much more significant than 08.
Definitely as I said we are in unchartered waters. But the GOP/Dems have been written off many many times in history and came back in short order to power. As long as we have two I just can’t imagine the pendulum not swinging back at some point. We typically don’t like our leaders long and vote the other side until we remember they also suck and then say hey things were better with the other team…put them back in!
But the talk of a new party Trump starts could upset that. I don’t think he truly wants to seek office again. But I think he wants money. And I think he knows people will give it to him.
1 Like
Quite possibly. Neither party has a unified ideological outlook. One has the problem of trying to govern with that, and we all saw how well the GOP managed that in 2016-18.
Petty bitch fights, and gridlock in congress. It remains to be seen if the Democrats can manage narrow majorities better than the GOP could.
1 Like
Heh. (just to be clear, it’s satire)
3 Likes
It’s doubtful the Democrats will handle it well. Will the progressive wing realize that the election was an indictment of their policies? Will they care? Witness the spat between Manchin and AOC in November. Manchin spoke some common sense and AOC responded with childish behavior.
2 Likes
Conor Lamb damning her with faint praise was absolutely hilarious.
1 Like
What won’t be satire is how quick Fox News is going to talk about the national debt and say stuff like they want to use your taxpayer money for this when we are (insert giant number here) in debt. On the backs of YOUR grandchildren.
Spending is about to be a huge problem until someone is back in the Presidency with an R.
Good riddance.
“Going to talk about nationa debt” as in future tense? WSJ already started the pivot two days ago with this article…
I mean, EVERYONE wants to reduce the debt. How to reduce it is where things get testy.
On an unrelated note, damn that was a thick bible joe biden used for the innaguration.
You just want to get banned.
Little heavy handed don’t you think. IIRC, dcb is a conservative that can’t stomach the current direction of the GoP.
3 Likes
