Why haven't Trump's opponents portrayed him as a RINO?

[dudeabides]

[dudeabides]

They've tried.  The thing is, every attack bounces of Trump.  There's another reason why it wouldn't work.

In 2014, Arkansas voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage in the state, during a year where they won in landslides in the Senate and Governor's races.  There are a lot of Republicans who support some Democratic economic policies, its just that the Democrats have completely alienated these people with their multi-multiculturalism and social liberalism.

This is true, and it very much describes me.  I am a registered Republican who used to be a registered Democrat, but votes independently, and find myself in agreement with many of Trump's issue positions (moreso than with the standard Republican or Democrat).

People won't call him a RINO because Trump is filling a void in the GOP; the void left by the Perot voters becoming ambivalent about being Republicans.  Trump is where he is because the GOP had become SO narrow a tent that it was freezing out a whole lot of Republicans who were big on the Republican issues Trump pushes, but not on the whole range of issues that makes one a "conservative" today.

More importantly, Trump oozes leadership.  If his leadership is a bit misdirected at times, he still projects a highly decisive management style; if he's wrong, being decisive gives him time to reverse field and make corrections.  People want that.  People want a President who has a sense of certainty in the rightness in his decisions.  I recognize that self-assuredness can morph into egomania, but I also recognize that these qualities preferable to electing President Casper Milquetoast.
 

You have expressed that you feel I personally dislike you. That is not the case, I have no issue with you personally and if we met in person, I'm sure I'd have a friendly conversation with you. But, sorry, I don't believe you are really a Republican. I have seen you express socially conservative views, but when you talk about foreign policy and the economy, I feel as if I'm debating with liberals.

The real reason most of the candidates aren't calling Trump a "RINO" is because they are scared of him. Rand Paul has articulated quite effectively that Donald Trump is a "fake conservative." Trump represents people who are tired of Washington D.C., but are also scared of immigrants and blame their personal problems on globalization. I'm tired of Washington D.C., but I am not a bigot and I don't blame the stagnant economy on globalization, I blame it on a federal bureaucracy that is inept and clueless about how to create an environment where jobs can be created. We need more free markets, not less and that means lower taxes, fewer regulations, less corporate welfare, an end to this loose monetary policy, energy deregulation, more free trade, Obamacare repeal, and legal reform.

Finally, Donald Trump is not a leader. A leader doesn't take to Twitter at 3 a.m. to bash an accomplished television personality in a sexist manner. A leader doesn't attack veterans, immigrants, and people smarter than himself/herself. A leader doesn't lie to people. A leader certainly doesn't change positions in an attempt to curry favor with different groups.

[dudeabides]

They've tried.  The thing is, every attack bounces of Trump.  There's another reason why it wouldn't work.

In 2014, Arkansas voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage in the state, during a year where they won in landslides in the Senate and Governor's races.  There are a lot of Republicans who support some Democratic economic policies, its just that the Democrats have completely alienated these people with their multi-multiculturalism and social liberalism.

This is true, and it very much describes me.  I am a registered Republican who used to be a registered Democrat, but votes independently, and find myself in agreement with many of Trump's issue positions (moreso than with the standard Republican or Democrat).

People won't call him a RINO because Trump is filling a void in the GOP; the void left by the Perot voters becoming ambivalent about being Republicans.  Trump is where he is because the GOP had become SO narrow a tent that it was freezing out a whole lot of Republicans who were big on the Republican issues Trump pushes, but not on the whole range of issues that makes one a "conservative" today.

More importantly, Trump oozes leadership.  If his leadership is a bit misdirected at times, he still projects a highly decisive management style; if he's wrong, being decisive gives him time to reverse field and make corrections.  People want that.  People want a President who has a sense of certainty in the rightness in his decisions.  I recognize that self-assuredness can morph into egomania, but I also recognize that these qualities preferable to electing President Casper Milquetoast.
 

You have expressed that you feel I personally dislike you. That is not the case, I have no issue with you personally and if we met in person, I'm sure I'd have a friendly conversation with you. But, sorry, I don't believe you are really a Republican. I have seen you express socially conservative views, but when you talk about foreign policy and the economy, I feel as if I'm debating with liberals.

The real reason most of the candidates aren't calling Trump a "RINO" is because they are scared of him. Rand Paul has articulated quite effectively that Donald Trump is a "fake conservative." Trump represents people who are tired of Washington D.C., but are also scared of immigrants and blame their personal problems on globalization. I'm tired of Washington D.C., but I am not a bigot and I don't blame the stagnant economy on globalization, I blame it on a federal bureaucracy that is inept and clueless about how to create an environment where jobs can be created. We need more free markets, not less and that means lower taxes, fewer regulations, less corporate welfare, an end to this loose monetary policy, energy deregulation, more free trade, Obamacare repeal, and legal reform.

Finally, Donald Trump is not a leader. A leader doesn't take to Twitter at 3 a.m. to bash an accomplished television personality in a sexist manner. A leader doesn't attack veterans, immigrants, and people smarter than himself/herself. A leader doesn't lie to people. A leader certainly doesn't change positions in an attempt to curry favor with different groups.

I'm listed as an independent, and that's what I am.  I am, however, a REGISTERED Republican, which means that I VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY in Florida.  Whether I'm a RINO or not, I'm a GOP voter, so deal with it.

I voted for Bush 43 in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008, and Obama in 2012, and I'm leaning Republican in this year's Presidential election, although I will not vote for Christie, Walker, or Jeb, period.  When I voted Democratic for President, I voted GOP for Congress on the theory that neither side could do a lot of harm that way.  I'm pro-life, anti-war, pro-single payor healthcare, pro-union, anti-free trade, anti-SSM, anti-Common Core, pro-law enforcement . . . well, let's just say that I don't fit into a niche in either party.  You say you don't feel I'm really a Republican. I'm a socially conservative, economic moderate-liberal, and generally skeptical of our military interventions as being in our real national interest, but very big on maintaining a strong military for actual NATIONAL defense (and not Empire Maintenance/Nation Building).  Would any of our Democratic friends here think I was really a Democrat reading my posts?

The point here is that (A) there is no litmus test for registering as a member of a political party (which is requires for primary voting in the state where I live) and (B) I'm not going to disenfranchise myself in voting in local elections by registering Democrat or Independent in a heavily Republican county.  Like it or not, I'm part of the FL GOP electorate, and my vote counts as much as a vote for any lifelong Movement Conservative in the GOP electorate.  Think about the political implications of that.

As for switching issue positions:  George H. W. Bush blatantly switched from pro-choice to pro-life to run with Reagan.  After being voted out of office, he publicly renounced that position (Barbara Bush has always been pro-choice.)  Bush 41 called Reagan's economic plan "Voodoo Economics", but became a cheerleader for the campaign.  Let's get real here; how much has Trump switched issue positions compared to Bush 41?

Anyway, I'm a registered Republican, and I'm going to vote in the Republican primary.  Donald Trump's issue positions are closer to mine than many, and the Club for Growth types are the folks who've turned the GOP blatantly into the party of Corporate America, period.  That's why the GOP is at an Electoral Vote disadvantage these days; they no longer represent the hopes of people who want to get into and stay in the middle class.  Donald Trump's candidacy is, IMO, a possible remedy to this sorry condition the GOP has found itself in.

Okay, that is fair. You are an independent voter, fine. I respect that. It would be more honest of you to not register Republican, but that is your right as an American and I wouldn't question that.

Here is where we differ though, I registered Republican once I turned 18. I have voted for probably 10-15 Republican candidates, I've only supported a Democrat once because the GOP nominee was soft on national security and it was a special election where I'd have the chance to support a real conservative the following year.

On the issues you mentioned, only on being pro-life and against common core do a majority of Republicans agree with you. My views are in line with Republicans. I am for tax cuts, spending restraint, Paul Ryan's reforms to entitlements, pro-life, for state's rights, against gun control, against Obamacare, I'm okay with same-sex marriage but it's a state issue, for free trade, against federal involvement in education, for Jeb Bush's immigration position, for ending the Federal Reserve, for ending the Federal Department of Education, for ending all corporate welfare, for a balanced budget amendment, and for the kind of foreign policy advocated by George W. Bush and Condi Rice.

I get that on immigration and same-sex marriage, my views are moderate.

About George Bush, he isn't running for President this year and he really didn't change on economics if you think about it. He believed Reagan's tax cuts would be too large and he was focused more on deficit reduction, he actually raised taxes to reduce the deficit when he was President.

Trump was pandering to the far left in 2000, now he's pandering to the far right. George Bush switched positions on one issue, abortion. Both his son's have become known as public officials who are not willing to pander for votes.

The GOP is at an electoral college disadvantage today because the party has stopped appealing to minorities and women. Groups like the Club for Growth that advance economic freedom stay clear of the kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric that has hurt Republicans. Additionally, some Republicans don't have sound economic arguments, the Club for Growth and believers in free markets like me are trying to get the party to focus on issues that impact everyday Americans.

Most jobs are created in small and medium-sized businesses, but large corporations still employ millions of Americans. I think it's about time we stop demonizing job creators in this country, it's about time we come together as a country. The class warfare rhetoric of the left has not created any jobs.  

Wouldn't it make more sense to support Rick Santorum than Donald Trump? He's right there with Trump on free trade and immigration, but he is a social conservative who has been married to the same woman for years and has a happy family.

[dudeabides]

If Fuzzy Bear shouldn't be a Republican then I DEFINITELY shouldn't, I'm pro-choice but let the states decide, I'm definitely pro-marriage equality but once again let the states decide, we should stop interfering in other countries affairs, I am pro-free trade and I mean FREE trade, ending the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard.

I don't think it's fair for anyone to say who is a Republican, a Democrat or what ever, I was a registered Libertarian (Big L here) party member before I switched to being a Republican in 2011 so I could vote in the GOP primary here in Florida and stayed ever since.

You sound more libertarian to me. I actually have some libertarian leanings. I'm completely with you on trade, the Federal Reserve, and the gold standard. I also think the issue of marriage should be at the state level, though ideally I'd like to get the government out of the marriage business. But I have no issue personally with same-sex marriage, I used to be then I reflected on it and asked myself if it was right to discriminate against someone because they were born a certain way, and I said that we are all God's children and deserve to be free.

[dudeabides]

Okay, that is fair. You are an independent voter, fine. I respect that. It would be more honest of you to not register Republican, but that is your right as an American and I wouldn't question that.

Here is where we differ though, I registered Republican once I turned 18. I have voted for probably 10-15 Republican candidates, I've only supported a Democrat once because the GOP nominee was soft on national security and it was a special election where I'd have the chance to support a real conservative the following year.

On the issues you mentioned, only on being pro-life and against common core do a majority of Republicans agree with you. My views are in line with Republicans. I am for tax cuts, spending restraint, Paul Ryan's reforms to entitlements, pro-life, for state's rights, against gun control, against Obamacare, I'm okay with same-sex marriage but it's a state issue, for free trade, against federal involvement in education, for Jeb Bush's immigration position, for ending the Federal Reserve, for ending the Federal Department of Education, for ending all corporate welfare, for a balanced budget amendment, and for the kind of foreign policy advocated by George W. Bush and Condi Rice.

I get that on immigration and same-sex marriage, my views are moderate.

About George Bush, he isn't running for President this year and he really didn't change on economics if you think about it. He believed Reagan's tax cuts would be too large and he was focused more on deficit reduction, he actually raised taxes to reduce the deficit when he was President.

Trump was pandering to the far left in 2000, now he's pandering to the far right. George Bush switched positions on one issue, abortion. Both his son's have become known as public officials who are not willing to pander for votes.

The GOP is at an electoral college disadvantage today because the party has stopped appealing to minorities and women. Groups like the Club for Growth that advance economic freedom stay clear of the kind of anti-immigrant rhetoric that has hurt Republicans. Additionally, some Republicans don't have sound economic arguments, the Club for Growth and believers in free markets like me are trying to get the party to focus on issues that impact everyday Americans.

Most jobs are created in small and medium-sized businesses, but large corporations still employ millions of Americans. I think it's about time we stop demonizing job creators in this country, it's about time we come together as a country. The class warfare rhetoric of the left has not created any jobs.  

Wouldn't it make more sense to support Rick Santorum than Donald Trump? He's right there with Trump on free trade and immigration, but he is a social conservative who has been married to the same woman for years and has a happy family.

Why would it be "more honest" of me to register as an Independent?  Doing so would deny me the right to vote in Republican Primaries for state and local offices, which are partisan, and where the GOP primary is tantamount to victory.  I didn't make those rules, and I wasn't given a litmus test when voting, so why is it more "honest"?  Really, that suggestion is made in the spirit of Voter ID laws; you'd like me to self-exclude so that your GOP can be "pure".  Florida registers voters by party, and non-Republicans can only vote in Republican primaries if the winner of the GOP primary for an office has no General Election opponent, but that is gotten around by GOP hacks filing to run as "write-in" candidates for the general election, which makes the primary (which will actually elect a Sheriff, County Commissioner, etc.) a GOP-only affair.  

I voted for Santorum in the 2012 primary, but he's not going to win.  I'm not going to throw my vote away.  Donald Trump has brought a degree of accountability to the GOP primary process that is refreshing, and his overall stances on issues mirror mine closer than most.  I'm not guaranteeing I'll vote for Trump in the primary, but if the primary was tomorrow, I definitely would.  Trump's presence in the race has shown the lot of GOP candidates to be cowards or incompetents.  The only ones of the lot that appear better for the wear are Kasich, Fiorina, and, oddly enough, Rick Perry, who actually showed some principle in his reaction to Trump.  Trump has revealed Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and (sadly) Rand Paul to be not ready for prime time (although the Establishment has propped up Jeb to where he's still the Establishment front-runner).  

You are entitled to register however you want, I'm not questioning that.

Donald Trump has not brought a degree of accountability. We only talk about his policy positions because we are political junkies, the casual observer is not talking about issues because Mr. Trump's focus has not been issues, it'e been rhetoric. Jeb Bush is at 7% nationally, I'm still supporting him because I believe in his reform message and I'm not looking at the polls in order to decide who to vote for.

Even if Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination, he would be destroyed in a general election. He is the weakest candidate polled against Hillary Clinton and with his shady background and lifestyle, who knows what else will come out about him. His views on immigration are out of line with the vast majority of Americans, even 51% of Republicans support a pathway to citizenship. He has no economic plan other than protectionist trade policies and taxing the rich, he doesn't understand the economy. He has no foreign policy, though we know he wants to negotiate with terrorists and threaten China & Mexico.

As far as being ready for prime time, objectively speaking, one would have to conclude that either Chris Christie or Marco Rubio won the first debate, Donald Trump lost the debate badly with his lack of knowledge of the issues. All of the other candidates are a lot smarter than Mr. Trump, and the two other non-politicians running have far more impressive resumes and they don't live the kind of lifestyle Mr. Trump does. I like and respect Carly Fiorina, I think she'd be a fine President. I like Ben Carson, but I don't view him as qualified for the job.

[dudeabides]

Ask Rand Paul how questioning Trump's conservatism worked out for him.

Yeah Paul had a bad night that night for sure.

1. Paul defeated Trump in the debates, though he was also destroyed by Christie
2. Paul's numbers were going south before he went after Trump

[dudeabides]

Finally, Donald Trump is not a leader. A leader doesn't take to Twitter at 3 a.m. to bash an accomplished television personality in a sexist manner. A leader doesn't attack veterans, immigrants, and people smarter than himself/herself. A leader doesn't lie to people. A leader certainly doesn't change positions in an attempt to curry favor with different groups.

This here is, to me anyway, the key point. I will, barring the Democrats deciding to randomly nominate Dan Lipinski, be voting for the Republican nominee unless it is Trump. It's not that I have some deep-seating love for 'job creators' or whatever the Republican talking points say I'm supposed to think. It's that Donald Trump has shown antics throughout the entirety of his campaign that are completely unacceptable for one seeking elected office. Just imagine the thought of that nutjob (yes he is one) having the keys to nuclear missiles! I'm sure with the NSA's database, he could not only leak Lindsay Graham's cell phone number; he could leak mine too, or yours, or anyone's. And being Trump, if you offended him somehow he probably would. And for all his drivel about how people are too offended by political correctness, his skin is thinner than all the rest. Perhaps if he ever bothered to look in the mirror instead of perpetually throwing bombs he might notice. For all his talk about the corrupt establishment, he doesn't seem to have any regret for people who lost their jobs over his real estate transactions. Donald Trump is not a leader; he's a sociopath. I would not vote for him for local dogcatcher.

I will say that I would not have done many of the things Donald Trump has done if I were running for office; it's not my style.

That being said, if Donald Trump is a sociopath, what do we say about the Bush Family?  Of Bush 41, who went to Paris during the 1980 campaign to delay the release of Iranian hostages to influence the election?  Or who pardoned Cap Weinberger so he wouldn't have to testify under oath of his (Bush 41's) role in Iran Contra?  Or of Bush 43, who waged war against a country on false pretenses, knowing they were false?  

Behind their genteel manners, the Bushes have no scruples; it's all about raw political and business power.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13256267/1/4-times-donald-trump-was-savvy-or-shady--you-decide.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/12/the-massive-flip-floppery-of-donald-trump-explained-in-238-seconds/

[dudeabides]

Finally, Donald Trump is not a leader. A leader doesn't take to Twitter at 3 a.m. to bash an accomplished television personality in a sexist manner. A leader doesn't attack veterans, immigrants, and people smarter than himself/herself. A leader doesn't lie to people. A leader certainly doesn't change positions in an attempt to curry favor with different groups.

This here is, to me anyway, the key point. I will, barring the Democrats deciding to randomly nominate Dan Lipinski, be voting for the Republican nominee unless it is Trump. It's not that I have some deep-seating love for 'job creators' or whatever the Republican talking points say I'm supposed to think. It's that Donald Trump has shown antics throughout the entirety of his campaign that are completely unacceptable for one seeking elected office. Just imagine the thought of that nutjob (yes he is one) having the keys to nuclear missiles! I'm sure with the NSA's database, he could not only leak Lindsay Graham's cell phone number; he could leak mine too, or yours, or anyone's. And being Trump, if you offended him somehow he probably would. And for all his drivel about how people are too offended by political correctness, his skin is thinner than all the rest. Perhaps if he ever bothered to look in the mirror instead of perpetually throwing bombs he might notice. For all his talk about the corrupt establishment, he doesn't seem to have any regret for people who lost their jobs over his real estate transactions. Donald Trump is not a leader; he's a sociopath. I would not vote for him for local dogcatcher.

I will say that I would not have done many of the things Donald Trump has done if I were running for office; it's not my style.

That being said, if Donald Trump is a sociopath, what do we say about the Bush Family?  Of Bush 41, who went to Paris during the 1980 campaign to delay the release of Iranian hostages to influence the election?  Or who pardoned Cap Weinberger so he wouldn't have to testify under oath of his (Bush 41's) role in Iran Contra?  Or of Bush 43, who waged war against a country on false pretenses, knowing they were false? 

Behind their genteel manners, the Bushes have no scruples; it's all about raw political and business power.

Yes the Bushes were terrible, but they aren't running for president in 2016. If opposition to free trade is your big issue, why not vote for Sanders? If his social liberalism scares you, take comfort in the fact that he wouldn't be able to pass anything through a Republican congress anyway.

You know, I got to be honest, I'm really tired of hearing how terrible the Bush family is.

George H.W. Bush served this country with distinction in World War II. He could have returned home and lived off his family's fortune, but instead he choose public service. He was a CIA Director, Vice President of the United States under one of the greatest President's in our history, and he served as President of the United States. He threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, and signed NAFTA into law which has created high-paying jobs.

George W. Bush turned his life around at age 40. He served as Governor of Texas and inherited the worst homeland security crisis in our nation's history as President of the United States. He toppled a murderous regime in Iraq, he toppled a terrorist regime in Afghanistan, he slowed down the process of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, he implemented the Patriot Act, he cut taxes for all taxpayers, he doubled border patrol agents which has led to a reduction in the flow of people across our southern border, he increased the number of free trade agreements from 3 to 16 to create more jobs and help consumers, he ended the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion, he fought to give vaccines to those in South Africa who otherwise had no access to them, and he passed bi-partisian legislation that has helped our most vulnerable seniors afford their medicine. Did he fail to control federal spending and did he have people at the Federal Reserve who were completely incompetent? Yes, and that hurts his legacy. But he was a good President and he's a great person.

The Bush family has given up their privacy for the sake of public service. If you want to attack their record or where they stand on issues, fine. But attacking them as "bad" as humans is just without merit. I think it's backwards that so many attack the Bush family while praising Donald Trump, look at his lifestyle of excesses and breaking vows versus the Bush's.

[dudeabides]

Christ this is beginning to sound worse than my Kennedy fanboying

I'd happily not talk about the Bush family, but some folks keep bringing it up.

[dudeabides]

George W. Bush turned his life around at age 40.

Admirable, perhaps, but not relevant to his legacy as a political leader.

He toppled a murderous regime in Iraq,

With the result that that country is now more unstable, and thus a ready breeding ground for terrorists, than ever before.

he slowed down the process of Iran getting a nuclear weapon,

[citation needed]

he implemented the Patriot Act,

Which is arguably the worst civil liberties violation since the McCarthy days.

he cut taxes for all taxpayers,

Including for the top 1%, contributing to a massive increase in the federal deficit.

he doubled border patrol agents which has led to a reduction in the flow of people across our southern border,

According to this graph, the number of illegal immigrants living in the United States increased by 3 million under President Bush, compared to an increase of less than 1 million under President Obama.

he increased the number of free trade agreements from 3 to 16 to create more jobs and help consumers,

Yet he presided over the worst recession in nearly a century.

Did he fail to control federal spending and did he have people at the Federal Reserve who were completely incompetent? Yes, and that hurts his legacy.

It certainly does.

First of all, I think this article from 2013 does a good job talking about post-Saddam Iraq, it is not biased towards one side or the other.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/10-years-after-the-fall-of-saddam-how-do-iraqis-look-back-on-the-war/277362/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Secondly, the reason we've seen fewer folks entering here illegally under President Obama than President Bush is because via executive order in 2004, President Bush doubled border patrol agents by the year 2010.

Third of all, you requested a citation on my claim about Iran, here it is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/28/us-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE8BR04620121228