This is for all of you who have been around long enough to have lived it. I didnt even know the RINO existed until a couple years ago, but i wonder how long they has been going on for? When and how did the RINO first start infiltrating the gop? When was the last time the gop was mainly conservative like its supposed to be?

I've touched on this subject a couple of times here and in articles I've written. (gop'E, little connection to the real GOP and strong on Establishment values, or rather, lack of.)

But it goes way back to before the Nixon era when Ailes Nixon's Nixons personal handler. By this point, the "RINO" had essentially helped kill off Goldwater giving LBJ the election and it's been downhill ever since.

if not for Ailes, Rush would still be in Sacramento on KFBK broadcasting to the central valley.
Ailes is the ultimate RINO, a Karl Rove on super steroids, only a 'behind the scene manipulator' out of the limelight.
It was he that made the deal with Murdoch to make FOX the Establishment Infomercial headquarters, and they could still be pulling the wool over people's eyes to date, had it not been for the likes of Boner and the Con.
Yes, early on, Rush was a spokesman for the Establishment.

Then to add insult to injury, the Establishment made the case for the Omnibus Bill where they gave the Marxists everything they demanded and more, only to turn right around and keep Cruz in the dark by ignoring him on FOX news, then to foolishly back Jeb for the next couple of months, and a succession of Establishment sellouts till finally milking Rubio to death, just long enough to suck delegates off of Cruz in support of Trump.

In the interim of all this going on, the Establishment/RINO/Leftists have stayed in power via Crony corporatism. This was threatened by Clinton during his election when he touted his connection to the corporate world, so it forced the gop'E to move further left in order to retain their money base since the Base had essentially bailed on them by this point.

But I digress. Let me back up, I see I've gotten this way out of context because I used old posts I've made in the past.

Take ethanol in gas, a pure waste of money, but the GOP needed corporate farms and the money they were willing to spend to get Govt subsidies, Congress to pass laws that placed tariffs on cheaper ethanol imports.
Yes, oddly enough, we, TEA forced the gop'E to turn their backs on the base and seek other financial support via corporations. Enter NAFTA, suddenly corporate America had no reason to stay and pay higher taxes when they could bail for greener pastures in China etc.

Reagan despised Bush but the RINO forced him to accept the loser as Veep, then as soon as Reagan was out of office, Bush announced he would not have one of Reagan's holdovers in his Administration, so the unraveling of Regan's accomplishments had already begun, which is why Clinton got elected, that and the party gave us losers like Bob Dole and McStain, later to be exposed for the traitor he is, yet the Establishment circled the wagons to protect him.

Sorry, that was so contextually out of date, but if you have specific questions, I'll be more than happy to address them.
The article I wrote below is one showing what was happening on the left during this same time period to the Dim party.

https://conservativehardliner.com/future-democrat-party-2018-and-beyond

Also called, "The Republican Wing of the Democrat Party"

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 16, 2018, 09:25:37 AM
Also called, "The Republican Wing of the Democrat Party"

Sadly, thanks to Newt destroying the Dim party when he was Speaker, the GOP happily accepted a bunch of Dims to join the party, further growing the Establishments power and leaving behind, what would later become todays Marxist Dim party.
These Dims bailed on the party because they were losing a voice amongst a growing faction of Marxists within the party.

The term "RINO" came about during the 1990s.  During the 1970s and 1980s we described Republicans who always sided with the Democrats as "Rockefeller Republicans," in reference to the extremely liberal former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was appointed VP by President Ford.

Prior to the 1970s "RINOs" were referenced as "Progressives."  The Progressive Party from 1890 to the 1930s consisted entirely of former Republicans, that included former President Teddy Roosevelt.  Teddy Roosevelt became the Progressive Party presidential candidate in 1912.  Contrary to popular belief, neither President Wilson nor any Democrat had anything to do with the original Progressive Party.  They vehemently opposed these former Republicans.  Which is rather humorous to think that Democrats are trying to pass themselves off as being "progressive" since the 1990s.  Democrats are not really liberal either, at least not in the classical definition of the word.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 02:16:28 PM
The term "RINO" came about during the 1990s.  During the 1970s and 1980s we described Republicans who always sided with the Democrats as "Rockefeller Republicans," in reference to the extremely liberal former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who was appointed VP by President Ford.

Prior to the 1970s "RINOs" were referenced as "Progressives."  The Progressive Party from 1890 to the 1930s consisted entirely of former Republicans, that included former President Teddy Roosevelt.  Teddy Roosevelt became the Progressive Party presidential candidate in 1912.  Contrary to popular belief, neither President Wilson nor any Democrat had anything to do with the original Progressive Party.  They vehemently opposed these former Republicans.  Which is rather humorous to think that Democrats are trying to pass themselves off as being "progressive" since the 1990s.  Democrats are not really liberal either, at least not in the classical definition of the word.

Vox has an interesting history on the term, "Repub In Name Only", though the acronym had yet to be spoken until Clinton was elected.

"Teddy Roosevelt was the first true RINO"
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9416259/rino-word-history

Also note, this was during the time Newt essentially gutted the Dim party of it's remaining moderates that jumped ship for the gop'E, leaving behind what turned out to be a bunch of Fabian socialists, or as most know them, as Marxists in the Dim party.
Unfortunately, as I posted earlier, this watered down the GOP with more leftists, as mentioned in the article, in turn pushing out Conservatives and leaving us with what was a complete mess of leftists in the GOP, or rather, gop'E.
Though all of this is changing and has been since 2010. We're nearing the tipping point of taking over the party for the first time as Conservatives in its history arguably.

Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 03:09:37 PM
Vox has an interesting history on the term, "Repub In Name Only", though the acronym had yet to be spoken until Clinton was elected.

"Teddy Roosevelt was the first true RINO"
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/29/9416259/rino-word-history

Also note, this was during the time Newt essentially gutted the Dim party of it's remaining moderates that jumped ship for the gop'E, leaving behind what turned out to be a bunch of Fabian socialists, or as most know them, as Marxists in the Dim party.
Unfortunately, as I posted earlier, this watered down the GOP with more leftists, as mentioned in the article, in turn pushing out Conservatives and leaving us with what was a complete mess of leftists in the GOP, or rather, gop'E.
Though all of this is changing and has been since 2010. We're nearing the tipping point of taking over the party for the first time as Conservatives in its history arguably.

I disagree with Vox's assessment.  Teddy Roosevelt was no longer a Republican after 1912.  He was so upset with how President Taft was screwing things up, he decided to run for a third term as a member of the Progressive Party.  Teddy was shot in the chest while performing one of his campaign speeches, but he finished his speech walked back into the railroad car and declared that he was "as fit as a bull moose."  Hence forth the Progressive Party became known as the Bull Moose Party.

While the Progressive Party did indeed support the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments, and they all originated with the Republican Party initially, it would be incorrect to describe them as "RINOs" since they were no longer Republican In Name.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:05:25 PM
I disagree with Vox's assessment.  Teddy Roosevelt was no longer a Republican after 1912.  He was so upset with how President Taft was screwing things up, he decided to run for a third term as a member of the Progressive Party.  Teddy was shot in the chest while performing one of his campaign speeches, but he finished his speech walked back into the railroad car and declared that he was "as fit as a bull moose."  Hence forth the Progressive Party became known as the Bull Moose Party.

While the Progressive Party did indeed support the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments, and they all originated with the Republican Party initially, it would be incorrect to describe them as "RINOs" since they were no longer Republican In Name.

I didn't read the article perse, I was more, in referring to the links embedded within.
The actual newspaper clippings of the day. Those to me are fascinating.

Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 04:13:22 PM
I didn't read the article perse, I was more, in referring to the links embedded within.
The actual newspaper clippings of the day. Those to me are fascinating.

I think the term RINO needs to be reserved only to those who continue to call themselves Republican, but do not behave like Republicans.  Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski are just two of many such examples in the current Congress.

If they aren't calling themselves a Republican any longer, then the RINO label doesn't really apply.  I think you are seeing a lot of Democrats registering as Republicans ever since the Republican Party took back the majority in the House in 1995.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 11, 2018, 04:25:18 PM
I think the term RINO needs to be reserved only to those who continue to call themselves Republican, but do not behave like Republicans.  Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski are just two of many such examples in the current Congress.

If they aren't calling themselves a Republican any longer, then the RINO label doesn't really apply.  I think you are seeing a lot of Democrats registering as Republicans ever since the Republican Party took back the majority in the House in 1995.

First one has to define what being a Republican really means. The party hasn't been even remotely Conservative since Goldwater and somewhat before, even going back another century.
The party's were split along ideological lines which intersected where the nations constituency and Constitution were concerned, but both needed money to stay in power and Conservatism has never been a money maker.
For me, more than half the party cares nothing about the people, only the monied interests that keep them in power, which in truth, has always been at the core of party politics, particularly the Pubs and their Cronyism, something the Dims usurped under Clinton and instead of doing what the people elected them to do, they chose to move left in hopes of capturing more of the money the Dims seized.

Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2018, 05:57:51 PM
First one has to define what being a Republican really means. The party hasn't been even remotely Conservative since Goldwater and somewhat before, even going back another century.
The party's were split along ideological lines which intersected where the nations constituency and Constitution were concerned, but both needed money to stay in power and Conservatism has never been a money maker.
For me, more than half the party cares nothing about the people, only the monied interests that keep them in power, which in truth, has always been at the core of party politics, particularly the Pubs and their Cronyism, something the Dims usurped under Clinton and instead of doing what the people elected them to do, they chose to move left in hopes of capturing more of the money the Dims seized.

The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were split along ideological lines, but the Democratic Party was created out of sheer spite.  It was because Andrew Jackson lost the 1824 presidential election, even though he had the most popular and Electoral votes, that he created the Democratic Party in 1828.  It was hatred, not ideology that spawned the Democratic Party and it remains the "Party of Hate" to this day.

What remained of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties after 1828 became the Whig Party, in mockery of Andrew Jackson tendency to govern as if he were a King.  A quarter century later the Whigs became the Republican Party.  Right about the same time the "Party of Hate," a.k.a. the Democratic Party, started the Civil War.  Every slave owner in the US in 1861 was a Democrat, without exception.

The Republican Party has always been a champion for individual civil liberties.  It has only been the Republican Party that has ever sponsored any laws pertaining to civil rights, and always opposed by the Democratic Party.  The "fiscal conservative" aspect of the Republican Party only started to become a factor after WW II, when the GOP finally regained control of the House.  During that time they not only stopped the federal hemorrhaging by the Democrats, they managed to get a surplus and reduce the National Debt.  However, it did not last long.  By 1956 the Democrats had retaken the House and the GOP would not regain the majority again until 1994.

From 1995 to 1998, under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, the GOP controlled House did indeed demonstrate fiscal restraint.  Unfortunately, I cannot say that about the GOP since 1998.  Speakers Frist, Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan have been serious disappointments.

The underlying philosophy of the Democratic-Republican / Whig / Republican Party, and what clearly separates them from the Democratic Party, has always been to champion the civil liberties of every one.  In general they support the founding principles of the US - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Whereas the Democratic Party is anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness.  In other words, the Democratic Party is the anti-American party, and the greatest threat the nation has ever faced.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 12:44:48 PM
The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were split along ideological lines, but the Democratic Party was created out of sheer spite.  It was because Andrew Jackson lost the 1824 presidential election, even though he had the most popular and Electoral votes, that he created the Democratic Party in 1828.  It was hatred, not ideology that spawned the Democratic Party and it remains the "Party of Hate" to this day.

What remained of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties after 1828 became the Whig Party, in mockery of Andrew Jackson tendency to govern as if he were a King.  A quarter century later the Whigs became the Republican Party.  Right about the same time the "Party of Hate," a.k.a. the Democratic Party, started the Civil War.  Every slave owner in the US in 1861 was a Democrat, without exception.

The Republican Party has always been a champion for individual civil liberties.  It has only been the Republican Party that has ever sponsored any laws pertaining to civil rights, and always opposed by the Democratic Party.  The "fiscal conservative" aspect of the Republican Party only started to become a factor after WW II, when the GOP finally regained control of the House.  During that time they not only stopped the federal hemorrhaging by the Democrats, they managed to get a surplus and reduce the National Debt.  However, it did not last long.  By 1956 the Democrats had retaken the House and the GOP would not regain the majority again until 1994.

From 1995 to 1998, under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, the GOP controlled House did indeed demonstrate fiscal restraint.  Unfortunately, I cannot say that about the GOP since 1998.  Speakers Frist, Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan have been serious disappointments.

The underlying philosophy of the Democratic-Republican / Whig / Republican Party, and what clearly separates them from the Democratic Party, has always been to champion the civil liberties of every one.  In general they support the founding principles of the US - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Whereas the Democratic Party is anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness.  In other words, the Democratic Party is the anti-American party, and the greatest threat the nation has ever faced.

Yeah, we all know the history, but we also know the rest that you conveniently skipped over.
Like Teddy Rosevelt's Progressive Bull Moose party or Lincolns creation of the IRS, Nixon killed the gold based dollar.
These were all progressive moves to grow govt and quash individual Liberty.

Truth is, The GOP has never truly been a defender of the Constitution, they merely capitulated to the left for personal gain and claimed there was nothing they could do about it. (latest evidence, the OMNIBUS Bill, or Ethanol/farm subsidies)
Instead of the party actually standing their ground, they have historically ceded to the left, and yes, I can list tens of thousands of pieces of Legislation where they gave in, only to gain for those that put them in office.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 01:15:23 PM
Yeah, we all know the history, but we also know the rest that you conveniently skipped over.
Like Teddy Rosevelt's Progressive Bull Moose party or Lincolns creation of the IRS, Nixon killed the gold based dollar.
These were all progressive moves to grow govt and quash individual Liberty.

Truth is, The GOP has never truly been a defender of the Constitution, they merely capitulated to the left for personal gain and claimed there was nothing they could do about it. (latest evidence, the OMNIBUS Bill, or Ethanol/farm subsidies)
Instead of the party actually standing their ground, they have historically ceded to the left, and yes, I can list tens of thousands of pieces of Legislation where they gave in, only to gain for those that put them in office.

Actually, Nixon took us off the Silver Standard in 1971.  FDR took the US off the Gold Standard in 1933.

Also the Progressive Party began in the 1890s, long before Teddy Roosevelt decided to run as their candidate in 1912.  The Progressive Party extended into the 1930s.  It was not Teddy's party.

You have it completely backwards.  As I mentioned, the Progressive Party supported the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments.  The 15th and 19th Amendments were certainly progressive in nature.  Without the support of the Progressive Party neither blacks nor women would have been able to vote.  The 16th and 17th had no effect on the size of government or individual liberties.

The 18th Amendment was, without a doubt, a restriction on individual liberties by the Progressive Party, and not progressive at all.  Thankfully that mistake did not last long and was repealed.  The majority of the Republican Party also voted for the 18th Amendment, which was not very characteristic of them either.

The Republican Party has been the ONLY defender of the US Constitution since its inception.  What do you think the Civil War was about?  You need to learn more about US political history.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 13, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Actually, Nixon took us off the Silver Standard in 1971.  FDR took the US off the Gold Standard in 1933.

True, and he did it under an EO, of course Congress followed up to make the scam a law, where he stole gold from the American people and increased the value from ($20.00?) But gold was still locked to the dollar under gold bonds, when he raised the price that held at $35 per ounce until Nixon finally broke the bond of gold to dollar permanently.

QuoteAlso the Progressive Party began in the 1890s, long before Teddy Roosevelt decided to run as their candidate in 1912.  The Progressive Party extended into the 1930s.  It was not Teddy's party.

Arguably, this is a good point, in that Teddy exposed the split in the party and progressives made serious inroads in the GOP, from which we never recovered.

QuoteYou have it completely backwards.  As I mentioned, the Progressive Party supported the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments.  The 15th and 19th Amendments were certainly progressive in nature.  Without the support of the Progressive Party neither blacks nor women would have been able to vote.  The 16th and 17th had no effect on the size of government or individual liberties.

No, you're comparing two essentially two leftist party's. There was no real need for any of these Amendments, had the Constitution actually been followed, but this is opinion based and I see no reason to expand this discussion on the point further, for I base it on the mess we're in today.

QuoteThe 18th Amendment was, without a doubt, a restriction on individual liberties by the Progressive Party, and not progressive at all.  Thankfully that mistake did not last long and was repealed.  The majority of the Republican Party also voted for the 18th Amendment, which was not very characteristic of them either.

The Republican Party has been the ONLY defender of the US Constitution since its inception.  What do you think the Civil War was about?  You need to learn more about US political history.

This is where we split. I see both party's stealing from Peter to pay Paul, with the exception, The pubs steal less, but they still steal.
The real problem is neither party protects the Constitution or the B of R, one constantly attacks, while the other gives ground on a regular basis.
If the GOP were truly a Conservative leaning party, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
True, and he did it under an EO, of course Congress followed up to make the scam a law, where he stole gold from the American people and increased the value from ($20.00?) But gold was still locked to the dollar under gold bonds, when he raised the price that held at $35 per ounce until Nixon finally broke the bond of gold to dollar permanently.

Incorrect.  The US had been off the Gold Standard for 38 years before Nixon took the US off the Silver Standard.  You are confusing Nixon with FDR.  Nixon had no choice but to take the US off the Silver Standard because of the Marshall Plan.  We flooded Europe with US dollars rebuilding it after WW II, and if Nixon had not taken the dollar off of all precious metal standards in 1971 it would have bankrupted the nation.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Arguably, this is a good point, in that Teddy exposed the split in the party and progressives made serious inroads in the GOP, from which we never recovered.

Also incorrect.  There has always been third parties in the US, and the Progressive Party was one of them.  You wouldn't call the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party a split from the Republican Party would you?  Then you can't call the Progressive Party a split from the Republican Party either.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
No, you're comparing two essentially two leftist party's. There was no real need for any of these Amendments, had the Constitution actually been followed, but this is opinion based and I see no reason to expand this discussion on the point further, for I base it on the mess we're in today.

Incorrect yet again.  The Progressive Party were not leftists.  You are allowing Democrats today define what it means to be progressive, and that is a serious mistake.  Progressives are NOT leftists, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Leftists hated the Progressive Party.  President Wilson opposed everything the Progressive Party supported, including women's right to vote.  Leftists are anti-liberty, progressives are pro-liberty - which is why they were all former Republicans and no Democrats.  The Progressive Party also supported a federal anti-lynching law, which every Democrat in Congress opposed.  Just because Democrats claim to be "progressive" or "liberal" does not mean that they are.  Democrats are always claiming to be something they clearly are not.

You need to read "Age of Reform" by Richard Hofstadter.  It covers US political history from 1890 to 1940.    Written in 1960, he won a Pulitzer Prize for History with this book.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
This is where we split. I see both party's stealing from Peter to pay Paul, with the exception, The pubs steal less, but they still steal.
The real problem is neither party protects the Constitution or the B of R, one constantly attacks, while the other gives ground on a regular basis.
If the GOP were truly a Conservative leaning party, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If by "steal" you mean implement a constitutionally authorized tax, how do you think government is funded?  Taxation is not theft.

I already explained how the Republican Party became associated with being "fiscally conservative."  That was a relatively new phenomena started in the 1950s and did not last very long.  The Republican Party today has been infiltrated by so many Democrats that it is nothing like it was just 20 years ago.