Absolutely. Which is what makes They are, have always been so blatantly false.

You are the one who imputed that 'cmurf referred to all parties named the Republican Party, rather than the more logical interpretation as the current party named the Republican Party.

"The logical interpretation"? There's not much logical about using the word "always" and expecting everyone understand "currently" was actually meant, when no caveat like "modern" was included.

This gets my goat more on the grounds of using sweeping absolute statements, than any care for the reputation of Republicans, current or pre-1960.

Did your old Republican Party dismantle? No. It evolved. Ergo, same party. Ergo, the use of "always" applies to it.

Grand Old Party ;)

https://www.gop.com

The Parties switching is a myth. Only handful changed sides. Way to rewrite history.

Well sourced: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and...

Dinesh D'Souza The Switch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ

You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Perhaps the former chairman of the Republican party can inform you of exactly what the Republican party stands for:

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-inf...

On the other hand, the fact that a blowhard troll like Dinesh D'Souza passes for an intellectual in the modern Republican party is more evidence that they're definitely not elitists.

That would be convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, author of such timeless classics as Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?

>Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?

Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.

(1) Adultery is not your average indiscretion. Breaking a marriage contract is illegal in most jurisdictions (though it is rarely enforced).

(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).

It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.

>high moral standards, as well as high academic standards

I don't find cheating to be especially immoral, at least not more than lying or withholding information for any other purpose.

You can bring up D'Souza's getting fired for cheating on his wife with the Board of Trustees of King's College. Their address is:

  56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004

Since King's College is an accredited, Christian liberal arts college, I can only assume that they demand the highest moral character from their professors and administration. And stuff.

Why would I? I don't care about their views on morality, and they can decide whatever they like. I wouldn't regard religious schools as a quality education though.

But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.

It's a Catholic college.

And this would be a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Um, no. An ad hominem argument would be if I were attacking 551199's character which I'm not. Instead, 551199 cited D'Souza as a reliable source and I attacked D'Souza's character. See the difference? Good.

I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.

..based on political views you find odious, rather than directly attacking what you think is right or wrong about the particular (unrelated) statement in question. That is an ad hominem argument.

> ..based on political views you find odious

Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.

Ad hominems are not always fallacious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Non-fallacious_reas...

Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.

I agree. Attack the argument not the arguer.

Again, the arguer was+is 551199 and I'm not attacking him. However, he did trot out the odious Dinesh D'Souza and I felt it necessary to put that cretin into his proper context. So I'm not attacking the arguer; I'm attacking his alternate facts.

No, he got paid to speak about the importance of family and the evils of gay marriage.

And this has what to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his analysis?

He makes a living being a partisan Republican. That means he can't be impartial.

Being able to practice what one preaches is a useful heuristic on how authentically one holds that position.

..which is still a poor proxy for correctness or incorrectness.

k, but the people who fired him for it disagree

This whole Dinesh D'Souza tangent is a distraction to avoid talking about the issue at hand.

I think its safe to say that one the guiding principles of the modern Republican party is that less government regulation is better for everyone.

So why is the party that always advocates for less regulation and more competition REGULATING the energy market and RESTRICTING competition? Maybe because they aren't really for less regulation and more competition. Maybe they are about protecting the status quo?

Squaring the less regulation/more competition principles against this Wyoming law, or the anti-Tesla legislation in conservative states seems to indicate that these "principles" are an idealogical front to justify at least what some people want - Protecting their interests.

It's not well sourced. Your sources are from Republican partisans.

Compared to wikipedia article that only scratches the surface what the 'switch' was about?

Wikipedia is far from non partisan.

Reality has strong opinions on things, too.

>You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Get used to it. Folks on HN often downvote anything that's counter-liberal. I post my Austrian views a lot and I get downvoted a lot.

Voted you up BTW.