[RogerFGay]

A semantic argument trying to replace substance? I’ve never seen that in a political discussion before. (lol) RINO can refer to any politician who uses the Republican name brand but doesn’t adhere to conservative principles. Having previously been a Democrat and switching to the Republican Party name brand for political convenience (like union leader Ronald Reagan for example) is not required.

[muawiyah]

I see what your problem is. You are trying to confound CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN.

That doesn't work for a wide variety of reasons ~ one of which is that ALL Conservatives aren't Republicans, and another that ALL Republicans aren't Conservatives.

It's also impermissible to confound TEA Party with REPUBLICAN Party, and vice versa.

[muawiyah]

Ronald Reagan never ran for political office as a Democrat.

[muawiyah]

BTW, that's not a SEMANTIC argument ~ it's one of elemental substance, to wit: POLITICAL entanglements versus IDEOLOGICAL entanglements.

Some terms are perfectly suited to politics ~ to wit, RINO; other terms are perfectly suited to ideology ~ to wit, LEFTWINGTARD (which has multiple variations).

Remember, as so many others have had to learn the hard way, COMMUNISTS cannot be dealt with like they were simply members of a political party, nor can ISLAMOFASCISTS be thought of as just another religion.