Can this be moved to the political forum?

One thing I never quite understood is why Trump himself is not considered a RINO. I saw someone make this claim the other day and it got me thinking. I mean, his policies are not that conservative on paper, and he is not about supporting the party as a whole, but rather himself. But according to a poll I read, almost half of Republicans say they are more loyal to Trump than the party, and people often accuse other Republicans of being RINOs if they do not support Trump. Like Trump is far more a RINO than Cheny.

I'd say the definition of RINO is if you side with Democrats over other Republicans you disagree with. Trump is not my favorite Republican but its definite RINO behavior to think he's a worse option than the Democrats.

Cheney and other Republicans can disagree with Trump all they want but it's furthering the agenda of the Democrats by siding with them that's the egregious offense

The "RINOs" in Congress vote with their party 95%+ of the time, and "RINOs" support practically all conservative legislation, policies, etc.. Not liking Trump and considering him a threat to the country (as any criminal would be if hired for a job, which is why background checks, drug tests, etc. are done beforehand) doesn't make one a "RINO." If anything, it just means they're "anti-Trump" who is a person, not a party.

Cheney, for example, didn't lose her primary because she's not a Republican (or a RINO, if you will). She lost because she's anti-Trump.

Anti-Trump doesn't mean "RINO" or anti-Republican.

Cheney voted for and campaigned for the opposition, despite Trumps's flaws you cannot vote for the opposition when you are representing a political party.

Trump has changed the views of the Republican party enough to his side that calling him Republican in name only wouldn't make that much sense

Politics isn't supposed to be a "we vs. them" no matter the circumstances. Voting for and supporting another just because they have the same letter next to their name as you is a big reason America is such a divided mess.

Turning everything into a "with us or against us" mentality is dangerous, and anyone who hasn't been brainwashed with this idea needs to be rebuking it in America right now. Both parties are at fault of this, they're all the worst. I see a stupid "what side are you on?" Democratic ad on TV sometimes that I strongly dislike. American politics has become an infection on the country.

"Us vs Them" is just a reality, at least when it comes to elected Democrats and Republicans. It's true that the American voter has a lot in common with members of both parties, but the elected leaders in both parties advocate opposite things. It is not logical to vote for the other party if the other party is going to implement policy you don't like, no matter the character flaws of the particular party member on the ballot

I don't think there's any problem with there being moderate parts of each part, whether it's Manchin and Sinema on one side or Romney on the other. I think half the reason the "RINOs" (as in Romney types and not Cheney and Kinzinger Trump deranged ones) are disliked is they're seen as weak. The Republicans before Trump were doing nothing to actually stop the US from moving more left every generation as instead of trying to make it more conservative, the left just had to set the goalposts as far left as they could, and the Republicans would try to compromise to give them half of that, but that's still left of where they started. Eventually by keep folding and nominating the few Republicans the left and media found palatable like McCain and Romney, the Republicans would have been suckered into a position where by 2030s they're 2016 Hillary and the Democrats are 2016 Sanders in terms of views. The Trump and DeSantis types are popular in part because they're more willing to stand their ground than that.

A reality that only becomes accepted when people don't push back against it. Voting for an "evil" or "corrupt" politician because they vote for policies you like makes one just as bad. They're representatives of the same sort of scum as them at that point.

The world isn't suppose to be about doing whatever you can to get your way, or having things you like, at the expense of others. Is it often that way? Yeah, people are generally selfish and largely only care about themselves or those close to them. If someone or something doesn't fit one's image or liking, it's seen as wrong. What do I care of someone thousands of miles away that has had their life negatively impacted because I support someone or something and vote a certain way that best fits my personal interests, right? I don't know them, after all. My happiness and those closest to me is what matters most.

Well, it may matter most, and that's perfectly okay and human thing, but it doesn't have to be all that matters.

And as this relates to politics, one can help make a better difference by not blindly voting or supporting whomever, regardless of their character, just because they share similar opinions or interests and vote a certain way... for now, for as soon as their job (paycheck) is at stake, most with no character will betray themselves and those that had supported them without a second thought to keep the power (money) they hold.

Folks laughed at my title here, or thought I was being a Leftist reactionary, but I really do like the political branding here. Fascism is hyper misunderstood due to the anti-Nazi propaganda in the US via cartoons and war movies throughout the 60s through kinda the 90s or so with them being portrayed as Cobra type dictators. It honestly done us a disservice in knowing what Fascism actually is and how popular it would be with a certain type of person.

What is even more interesting is how American mainstream Fascism grew out of the Libertarian movement which is diametrically opposed to Fascism, yet they have ushered in someone like Trump who aims to strengthen the executive branch and put the justice department directly under his authority. It’s very fascinating from a Birds Eye view as someone who grew up studying history and almost became an historian himself.

In other news, Trump shared a video where the video states its desire to unite America under the next Reich.

For me the whole divide politically comes down to believing in equal outcomes vs unequal outcomes. The more you believe the world is naturally like the jungle having strong animals and weaker animals the closer you are to being fascist. Likewise the more people think everyone is equal and the differences between people's wealth is unjust, the closer they are to communist view. The most extreme versions in either direction are probably Hitler thinking the world is divided into better and worse races, and Pol Pot forcing people to be equal by banning all property and money. So I think the confusion is that yes, as a strong believer in capitalism and nationalism and thinking the world has winners/losers Trump is closer to being fascist than AOC is, but should this be called "fascism". Or should fascism just be reserved for the ultra extreme version like Hitler? It seems to me like once you get past the blustery personality, Trump's views are kind of just the normal American one as of a few decades ago, it's just once someone goes far enough left they now see this as fascism.

Anyway, I came here to say the hush money case couldn't be more of a train wreck if they tried.

That’s why it is an awkward mix rather than fascism proper. I do think the crux of this MAGA movement is Libertarianism, but the means to implement is Fascist. DeSantis and the anti-woke movement is certainly more Fascist than Trump, Bannon, and Miller. But the MAGA movement’s ideals of Nationalism, its economic policies (Third Alternative stuff) and its desire for cultural homogeneity are very fascist.

When it comes to authoritarianism traits:

Trump base - Has the clear leader guy the most of the three.

The left - Were heavily pro covid restrictions and defaulted to trusting the experts/authorities on it. Famous for increase of internet censorship/speech sensitivity.

Traditional conservatives - Built on trusting authority of bible/wisdom of long history of Christians, the multi generational aspect probably lends itself to listening to parent or community authority figure. They were the original censorship crew etc.

I follow some conservatives that instead of just wanting to get rid of wokeism to go back to early 2000s style free speech I like do, they say that this vacuum created wokeism and that you need to impose some sort of guiding ideology/rules/religion on people so they don't make up an unstable secular one like woke or Chinese cultural revolution kids treating Mao like their god. They don't like classical liberalism/libertarianism because they think it lets the fox in the henhouse by offering no resistance to new ideologies. I would argue if the US becomes right now authoritarian right wing one day it's as likely to come from traditional conservatives who think like this.