Rino

There are allegations that Dan is a RINO (Republican In Name Only), but all the reasons why are mistruths or unverifiable.

Is Dan Crenshaw a RINO (Republican In Name Only)? Certainly, there's a vocal group out there claiming he is. Whether that's because he's too moderate, they're paid leftist sock puppets is unknown. What is known is that each of the claims seems to a lie of omission, exaggeration, or outright falsehood. That isn't to give Dan sainthood -- but dislike him for what he does/doesn't do, not based on the lies/exaggeration of his political rivals.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2022-02-22

Claims[edit | edit source]

Some claim that Crenshaw is a RINO. I ask why. Here are the answers (and the research):

The basic accusation that Dan is a RINO ignores his voting record: ^[1]
- 98% Heritage Action Score
- A rating: NRA and GOA (Gun Owners of America)
- 100% National Right to Life / 20% by Planned Parenthood
- 100% Independent Petrolium Association

Dan supports Red Flag laws. Except he doesn't.
- In response to a Trump tweet in support of Red Flag laws after the Sandy Hook shooting, Crenshaw mentioned that the Democrat version of these things was absurd, but there does need to be a way to take away guns from imminent threats. But they need to have a due process, and something better than what the Democrats propose. I'm about as pro-2A as they come, and he has a point.
- Also, there was a bill that everyone had agreed upon (to continue to finance the military), and it had a rider in there about red-flag laws. But it was already agreed that was getting yanked, and it wouldn't pass the senate with it. So Dan was not going to vote against funding the military, for a clause that wasn't getting in the final. So he voted yes, and it was pulled before passage as everyone agreed. That's not for red-flag, that's against de-funding the military for useless grandstanding.

Dan is an environmentalist (meaning Green-New-Deal guy) because he said that Republicans should go to these conferences and explain the conservative point of view, or they just become echo chambers of leftist thought. Point out the advantages of Nuclear and Natural gas, etc. They should be challenged in person. Um, yeah, I agree. That isn't what a GND/environmentalist looks like.

Dan (and others) voted for a Vaccine Database. No, they didn't, and this video explains it. There's been an Immunization Information System (IIS) for 50 years. The Democrats tried to pass a bill that would spend more on upgrades but increase traceability of individuals. The Republican lead bill (which passed) agreed to fund security/infrastructure upgrades, but only if it increase anonymity and made it harder to track individuals (protect patient privacy). If this hadn't of passed, the Democrats would have passed their version, which was much worse. ^[2]

Some claim that Dan is John McCain in drag? But Dan's voting record doesn't have him blocking ending ACA, or anything like McCain. When you try to corner them the best they can find is an old tweet where Crenshaw told Trump to focus on something other than the dead senator because it was getting old. (It was. Whether Trump is right or not, dancing on a grave is not a good look in a President, and it was time to move on).

Dan support Liz Cheney? That was going around. So I looked into it... oh, back before J6 got going, Liz stood against the party, and Dan apparently made one tweet saying that she was brave to stand against her party. Then Liz went full retard, and nobody asked or listened to Dan again on his views on whether he agrees with Liz. They don't want the truth, they want to spread the lie that saying that before J6 got going, is the same as saying it just the other day.

Dan did a long video where he was discussing the difference between bomb-throwers and legislators. And he said some people on the right spend more time grandstanding than getting the votes needed to pass a bill, or often don't show up for votes. He was slamming those people. It got taken out of context, and used as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Nobody at the time was confused by what he meant. But the hacked up video, out of context, makes it seem like he was bashing people he wasn't.

Dan was attacked by a sock-puppet woman who was on the campaign for his opponent (Jameson). She misparaphrased an out-of-context quote, to imply that Dan said Jesus was like a fictitious Superhero and not real. Dan replied, "don't question my faith", and defended his position. People first lied that he attacked a 10 year old girl (she was 18), he just asked that people watch the whole video and get the point. His point was valid.

Dan doesn't care about the J6 political prisoners. He mentions his job as a legislator is to legislate. He can't do anything substantial, until Republicans have the majority in congress (and Senate): so vote. That's not him not caring, he says it's wrong and he disagrees with it. Just grandstanding wouldn't help. ^[3]

Dan went after MTG and the Freedom Caucus (Liars and Grifters). Only none of the people at the 10 minute talk thought he thought that (nor the freedom caucus that he was supposebly attacking). It was only edited up later, out of context, where people misunderstood and went full retard on Dan over it. ^[4]

Dan's inside stock trading: he traded $20,000 in stocks on Jim Kramer's recommendation, and thought he was supposed to report at end of year, instead of quarterly. And some smacked him on that. Pelosi traded $30M. The FakeNews said that Dan made a higher percent on his trades that Pelosi did, without mentioning the whole market was up over that time (no insider info needed), and omitting the amount ^[5]

Not a RINO[edit | edit source]

Here's Dan's videos, which I've been watching regularly, as well as his book. And if he's a RINO, he's really good at hiding it, as he's saying all the right things. (And voting accordingly). Which is much better than real Republicans saying the wrong things and voting the wrong way. If this is RINO, give me more RINOs please.

Dan w/Ben Shapiro on persuation. ^[6]
Dan on CRT. ^[7]
Dan on Build-Back-Better ($3.5T bribe). ^[8]
Dan on Ilhan Omar / Defund the Police. ^[9]
Dan on Party of Science. ^[10]

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

If you have to lie for your cause, then you either don't have a good cause, or you're not a good person.

The people that repeat these lies without offering the color/context hit me as being either ignorant, gullible or dishonest. A few have and are willing to lie for their cause. Some are just paid shills (knowingly or unknowingly) by the far-left who want to undermine moderate conservatives like Dan. And the majority are just repeating what they heard, without doing the research. Sincerely believing in what you've been told without checking is called gullibility.

If you watch the context, you know that the short-hand version of these claims is usually bullshit. That doesn't mean you can't want a more hard-right conservative or want a more idealistic bomb-thrower, but if you have to lie (mislead) to win, then you're not a person of virtue in my book. There's room in here to dislike some of Dan's records for one reason or other. Just usually not on the things most often complained about. Or the things I've looked up.

After 6 months of trying, I have yet to find a Crenshaw basher that can back their shit up. Since they can't, they usually waste time attacking me, or changing the topic instead. But I'm still looking and asking for someone to offer evidence of their claims. And if they get some good evidence, I'll link it here.