Maybe it's time for normal Republicans to form a third party

[RINO Tom]

Why would Republicans leave their own party because a few yokels like boblow or whatever have infested it to vent their anger toward the scary immigrants?

[RINO Tom]

IMO the RINO's need to be purged from the party, if they're not advocating the policies of the Republican party they can go join the Democrats we don't need them.

1) What has happened to you?  You used to at least kind of make sense, now you seem to have gone full Ted Cruz.

2) Who defines who's a RINO?  I bet boboblaw disagrees with GOP policy as much as I do, but because he rails against being "PC" and is xenophobic, he's the "real" Republican?  GMAFB, dude.

I realized your wing of the party is a joke and needs to be purged over to the Democrats

If you don't like us, why don't you leave yourself?  We were here first before all the Bible-Thumpers and racists in our nation's worst region got mad at Grandpappy's Democratic Party and came running here.

please change your avatar to a D thanks

Wow, nice comeback, bro!

The two most successful Republican Presidents since WWII have been Eisenhower and Reagan.  Both held political positions that are closer to Rockefeller GOP's than to yours.

P.S.  People who use the term RINO and aren't being completely sarcastic (like my username) are especially stupid people.

[RINO Tom]

IMO the RINO's need to be purged from the party, if they're not advocating the policies of the Republican party they can go join the Democrats we don't need them.

1) What has happened to you?  You used to at least kind of make sense, now you seem to have gone full Ted Cruz.

2) Who defines who's a RINO?  I bet boboblaw disagrees with GOP policy as much as I do, but because he rails against being "PC" and is xenophobic, he's the "real" Republican?  GMAFB, dude.

I realized your wing of the party is a joke and needs to be purged over to the Democrats

If you don't like us, why don't you leave yourself?  We were here first before all the Bible-Thumpers and racists in our nation's worst region got mad at Grandpappy's Democratic Party and came running here.

please change your avatar to a D thanks

Wow, nice comeback, bro!

The two most successful Republican Presidents since WWII have been Eisenhower and Reagan.  Both held political positions that are closer to Rockefeller GOP's than to yours.

P.S.  People who use the term RINO and aren't being completely sarcastic (like my username) are especially stupid people.

Until the so-called moderate wing of the party wakes up and realizes they will not win without libertarians, conservatives, etc., they will keep losing elections.

Did you vote last time you could?  Because if you did, we're not doing anything "without" anyone.

Usually in the primaries, the moderates gather around a candidate and outnumber the other interest groups (social conservatives, libertarians, neocons, etc.) fair and square, and you actually have the nerve to accuse us of some sinister plot or as if we're not allowing you representation?  LOL.

To a certain extent, I agree with Rocky.  The people who are in charge of the GOP and its funding dollars are registered Republicans just like you, and they should have just as much of a say as you or anyone else ... if you don't like it, it seems rather silly to stay in their party and demand they leave...

[RINO Tom]

Chill out, guys.

Oh, come on.  You could post that in every single thread on this forum, and if we all took the advice, no one would post anything.

[RINO Tom]

When the "moderates" call our ideologies dangerous and shoot us down without question and mocking us constantly (not that I care) seems like the "moderates" don't want our votes or support, which is fine, but don't cry to us when you keep losing Presidential elections if you lose libertarians, conservatives etc.

... Did you vote for Mitt Romney?  Because my point is that I don't think these libertarians and conservatives are going to vote Democrat or third party, and even if they do, they tend to live in states that are already in the fold.  We don't need more votes in Alabama or Oklahoma or even the not-so-populated Florida Panhandle.  We need to start winning suburban voters who 1) tend to live in swing states and in more populated areas and 2) tend to vote more often, making them more important on election day.

So, pretty much, I dare them to support a different party.  We'd both be happier with where we are apparently, and I really don't think it'd negatively affect GOP electoral prospects that much, especially not long term.  It really sounds like they're p^ssed off because they don't have more influence but ... why should they?

[RINO Tom]

I have long maintained that anybody using the words "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" in any capacity other than to mock the phrase should be banned ASAP.

Yes, we know.

[RINO Tom]

If you want to debate the merits of being right-of-center fiscally, fine.  However, while fiscal and social issues aren't "independent" of each other, they're also not dependent on each other.  Being pro-life has nothing to do with whether or not you think more regulation will help or hurt the economy in the long-run.  I will refrain from using "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" if it bothers some, but people who have some left-of-center social views and right-of-center fiscal views aren't these boogeymen, LOL.  It's a possible product of making up your mind on where you stand on a number of different issues, and it doesn't make you an automatic idiot.

[RINO Tom]

NYMillennial is a troll. Just put him on ignore, guys. He seems to think that anything other than enlightened liberalism is "childish".

Aren't you like 16?

Lay down.

Haha ... careful there.

[RINO Tom]

His state has no income tax because of BUSINESS FIRST POLICIES, consequently has the most recessive tax code in the entire country and like most states routinely fails to fund its schools because the previous low tax environment must be preserved . In other words a "fiscal conservative but socially liberal" paradise!

If you want to debate the merits of being right-of-center fiscally, fine.  However, while fiscal and social issues aren't "independent" of each other, they're also not dependent on each other.  Being pro-life has nothing to do with whether or not you think more regulation will help or hurt the economy in the long-run.  I will refrain from using "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" if it bothers some, but people who have some left-of-center social views and right-of-center fiscal views aren't these boogeymen, LOL.  It's a possible product of making up your mind on where you stand on a number of different issues, and it doesn't make you an automatic idiot.

Ok partly it's a semantic thing. "Fiscally right-wing" does not mean anything. See I would take it to mean balanced budgets which is admirable but not really a political position, in the same way that "good schools" is not an idealogy but an aim. Some use the phrase for a bevy of economically right-wing causes like low taxes etc. Which seems like a distortion of the term.

And as for socially liberal ... well most  "socially liberal" causes de celebre I know requires some spending from the government or government action.

So it's partially semantic and partially annoyance at self-appointed wunderkinds.

I mean, I get where you're coming from, but what do you suggest?  I guess I could say, then, that:

"With some exceptions, I tend to agree with the current Democratic Party's platform on what we have classified as 'social' issues, and, with some exceptions, I tend to agree with the current Republican Party's platform on what we have classified as 'fiscal' issues."

However, I can't type that out every time, so I have more or less accepted what I know everyone means when they use those terms.

[RINO Tom]

NYMillennial is a troll. Just put him on ignore, guys. He seems to think that anything other than enlightened liberalism is "childish".

Aren't you like 16?

Lay down.

Haha ... careful there.

Oh wow, I realized how weird that sounded. Clarified it.