The Real RINOS

You may regard that as a better question, but it's a different one than the one you originally asked. Although "stood up to him" is rather vague. I regard much of her animus as strictly personal. Trump trashed her father and trashed their crowning life time achievement, the Iraq War, as a disaster. So it's not a surprise that she would personally hate him. Many in the GOP do, particularly considering his opinion of the Iraq War. That's why you have George Will, David Frum, Bill Kristol, David French, and many many more who not only opposed Trump, they left the GOP because of him.

Cheney herself said that the purpose of the J6 Congressional Inquiry was to make sure Donald Trump never became President again; not to seek the truth, not to figure out what to went wrong to prevent it from happening again, but to get Trump. This is personal.

 

This topic from me started at post #112 where I pose the same question I just posted. Your points about Trump trashing her dad.... yes, sure, that will no doubt have stuck with her. How much it affects this issue, we don't know.

I don't agree with the editorial gloss you give her comments. Just after 1/6, virtually no-one was defending Trump - not McCarthy, not McConnell, not even Lindsay Graham. It was broadly accepted at the time that Trump was to some significant degree culpable for what had happened. How that history has been rewritten is very puzzling to me. But the point is, Cheney saying Trump should never be president again is a fairly reasonable conclusion to arrive at if you believe Trump was largely responsible for the 1/6 riot. (I'd be curious about the exact quote you reference - if she explicitly said that the purpose of the committee was to ensure Trump didn't become president again, I think that would be out of order).

 

One final point because I wasn't clear: "Chaney supported Democrat fraud that's policy. So it was about policy". The ridiculousness is equating democratic fraud with policy (the word 'policy' actually means something) and then pretending that makes you right in your assertion that her rejection is about policy. With that kind of linguistic creativity, there is no argument you can't win. Fraudulently.

 

I don't care what you feel is ridiculous, and nobody on this planet should.

Cheney had a policy of perpetrating fraud against Trump. That cost her and it's good because she's either incompetent or currupt.

 

I agree the real RINO is Trump himself. Trump has never had a political ideology or philosophy of his own. The 7-time party switcher has adopted the political ideology of whatever party he belonged to at the time. A flaming liberal for the times he was a Democrat, a hard nose conservative when a Republican and a moderate when an independent or a member of my old Reform Party. But no political philosophy of his own. A chameleon when it comes to political ideology. He can change in a heartbeat what he is political wise. He never has believed in political philosophy, only himself and was willing to change whenever he saw it to his personal advantage.


The true lifelong Republicans and conservatives, Trump has targeted for revenge. It a shame most Republicans have thrown conservatism out the window for Trumpology. RINO’s one and all.

 

Politics was very different back then. We had a tradition of bipartisanship. It wasn't perfect, but it is why they used to pass roughly ten times the number of bills we pass now...

I like history, and I was around back then. Actually, everyone in my family was Republican but me and Sis. Republicans started as reformers. I can go into detail about how the party went to hell, for that matter.

 

Well I would disagree when you say "It was broadly accepted at the time that Trump was to some significant degree culpable for what had happened."

No. As far as the news media goes, yes, because they didn't need to know any facts to know they already blamed Trump. The purpose of this J6 committee was to show that had been behind an insurrection with the intention of overthrowing the government and continuing in power. Despite a succession of "blockbusters," they still have not shown that.

Elections can decide whether Trump should ever be President again or not, but Cheney clearly wants to come up with a pretense to override any sort of election.

 

That's why I referenced McCarthy, McConnell and Graham. Add to that the very many government and WH officials who resigned on or immediately after 1/6. At the time, didn't it seem to you that the Republican party was turning away from Trump?

They certainly haven't shown Trump intended to stay in power by means of an insurrection. But they've provided a lot of evidence that Trump was determined to stay in power however he possibly could.

Again, I disagree with the characterisation. The word 'pretence' suggests bad faith on her part, but I suspect she feels it's her duty to expose how Trump behaved.

By the way, can you find that quote about the purpose of the committee being to stop Trump getting elected again? I'd be interested to see the exact wording.

 

well back in those days both parties agreed on where the country needed to go they just disagreed on how to get there now it's one side wants it to be a communism and the other side wants it to be the 1950s. The two parties are just too far apart

It doesn't really matter because now we have what we have now.

Any Republican or Democrat calls a RINO is probably who the Republicans like because they don't agree with the Democrats.

 

Fiction.

Call Dems commies is more ridiculous now than it was in the 1950s. Most of them don't dare do what FDR did almost a hundred years ago...

Republicans have almost nothing in common with Eisenhower Republicans. They are the servants of the rich, and beholden to the mad dogs of the Right.

 

are you kidding me Bernie Sanders was quite a popular candidate and he's a communist.

FDR was a dictator and we should assassinate anyone who tries to do that.

you're thinking about the non-burney Democrats that's the party of the rich why do you think all of the rich people supported Joe Biden?

 

It doesn't matter she's still a turncoat she's jamming a dagger into her own party that's why she's losing it's because of things she's done not who she appeals to.

 

At that time I saw a Republican Party that got scared. Using establishment types who hated Trump from the beginning doesn't really make your case. McCarthy, McConnell, and Graham are more what's wrong with the Republican Party.

As for Cheney's comment:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you be willing to run against him in 2024?

REP. CHENEY: I'm very focused right now on my re-election and on the work of the select committee, and I can tell you that that the single most important thing, though, is to ensure that the Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee and that he certainly is not anywhere close to the Oval Office ever again.

 

You might be right - scared more than disgusted. After all, politicians have a very keen radar for what's dangerous for their careers. Nevertheless he was abandoned by a LOT of people in the days following 1/6.

OK thanks. I think you'd have a better case if the first bit didn't mention her re-election. That fact makes it difficult to directly link what follows to the select committee - why not link what follows also to her re-election? But more importantly, the word "though" breaks the link with what came before. So, on a close reading I think it's clear the 2nd half of the statement is her personal views and not a statement on the committee's work, though I don't think it was wise of her to mention the 2 things in the same breath for exactly the reason that it can easily leave people with the impression you were left with.

 

I linked the entire interview.

 

And? Was there anything else which you felt suggested the committee's main focus was stopping Trump from becoming President again?

 

Let's be honest about this.

Many people, and certainly people of both sides who are interested in these matters, have seen the images of the insurrection, of Trump igniting the mob during his Ellipse speech have kown from day 1 that he bears a huge responsibility in the Capitol attack.

So does the majority of the Trump supporters, including the coward GOP reps and senators who initially charged Trump but later changed their mind from fear of Trump.

The Committee is trying to retrace, step by step the timetable of the events that inevitably will demonstrate that.

However, what was still uncertain until a few days ago is whether it was a preplanned coup. The latest hearings testimonies were showing that the answer is a resounding YES.

 

There clearly was evidence of planning, but only slivers of evidence connecting Trump to that planning. Not nearly enough to make any kind of case against him IMO.

 

"I can tell you that that the single most important thing, though, is to ensure that the Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee and that he certainly is not anywhere close to the Oval Office ever again."

 

Why did I bother analysing what she said if you're just going to repeat her statement? Do you have any comment on my analysis?

 

What analysis? All you said was, "And? Was there anything else which you felt suggested the committee's main focus was stopping Trump from becoming President again?"

That's not analysis. That's you not accepting that Cheney said that stopping Trump from running for President was the most important priority. She said it, and I believe she meant it. I don't know what other "analysis" you expect from that.

 

Did you miss this entire paragraph?
"I think you'd have a better case if the first bit didn't mention her re-election. That fact makes it difficult to directly link what follows to the select committee - why not link what follows also to her re-election? But more importantly, the word "though" breaks the link with what came before. So, on a close reading I think it's clear the 2nd half of the statement is her personal views and not a statement on the committee's work, though I don't think it was wise of her to mention the 2 things in the same breath for exactly the reason that it can easily leave people with the impression you were left with."

 

OK you know her best then.

 

I examined the text. I'm asking which aspects of my analysis you might disagree with - these things are often value judgements. If you don't want to get into that, a snarky comment isn't a very gracious way of moving on.

 

Well I wasn't trying to be snarky, however I pretty clearly stated my take, which is that she said what she said, and meant what she said. Now you may want to argue that there is some greater nuance there needing to be picked apart, but...to what end? Are you simply trying to devise some way of making Cheney's statement mean something else that fits with your agenda? Well knock yourself out, but you don't need either my permission or help for that. I told you how I read it, and you are free to read it any way you like.