46 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

When a moderate went head to head with Bernie, Bernie was thumped.

And Biden wasn't even a particularly compelling moderate.

Bernie's only chance is a plurality with a fractured field where all SocDem votes are concentrated on him. 

He was beaten by an unpopular Hillary in 2016 and a fairly milquetoast moderate in 2020. SocDems hold a handful of seats in the house and one seat in the Senate.

Trumplicans are FAR more numerous, and have far and away more support from the voters than the squad or Bernie.

Oddly enough, Bernie would be more popular had a segment of previously true-blue democrats not defected in 2016 to flock over to the other side of the fence under the allure of Trump's brand of populism. So ironically, Trump' rise to prominence is coinciding with the democrat's increased success with quieting their populist left wing. So if anything, the recent momentum is swinging towards moderation for the dems, rather than the other way around.

Ya hate to see it.

19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oddly enough, Bernie would be more popular had a segment of previously true-blue democrats not defected in 2016 to flock over to the other side of the fence under the allure of Trump's brand of populism. So ironically, Trump' rise to prominence is coinciding with the democrat's increased success with quieting their populist left wing. So if anything, the recent momentum is swinging towards moderation for the dems, rather than the other way around.

Ya hate to see it.

yeah that makes sense. the window shifted the populists to the Republican party, which meant the Democrats - by default - because the more sane party. 

not sane mind you. just relatively.

17 hours ago, toolg said:

This statement the Office of the Former President is 🤡🌎

Trump and the GOP are currently inseparable.

yep. the repugs are the party of cheeto and MTG

17 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

The narrative that Biden shows the Dems are controlled by the Moderates is flawed in my opinion.  I believe that the inside leaders of the fringe left understood that they couldn't unseat Trump with a further left candidate and so they swallowed their pride and accepted Biden.  We'll find out soon enough but I think the challenge from the left flank comes in '22 to start and then in a BIG way in the lead up to '24.  I think the new guy WeaponX is right.  The Dems are going to have their day while the Repubs are already there now.

Even if I accepted your premise here (which I don't), the both sides it thing doesn't apply here either.

Far Left = "free" college, "free" health care, green energy

"Far Right" which is now the mainstream of the republican party = eliminating elections, changing the position of the presidency so the length of term is unlimited and for life, imprisoning or executing opposition leaders

 

While I don't want a cradle to the grave nanny state,  it's small potatoes compared to what the right wants. 

12 hours ago, L.E said:

Lower and lower we go. 

When people scoff at my declaration that the primary tenet of the republican party is to do away with elections, look no further. 

This MF'er spittin

 

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

When a moderate went head to head with Bernie, Bernie was thumped.

And Biden wasn't even a particularly compelling moderate.

Bernie's only chance is a plurality with a fractured field where all SocDem votes are concentrated on him. 

He was beaten by an unpopular Hillary in 2016 and a fairly milquetoast moderate in 2020. SocDems hold a handful of seats in the house and one seat in the Senate.

Trumplicans are FAR more numerous, and have far and away more support from the voters than the squad or Bernie.

I don’t see anyone arguing that the left is as far along as the right. 

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Even if I accepted your premise here (which I don't), the both sides it thing doesn't apply here either.

Far Left = "free" college, "free" health care, green energy

"Far Right" which is now the mainstream of the republican party = eliminating elections, changing the position of the presidency so the length of term is unlimited and for life, imprisoning or executing opposition leaders

 

While I don't want a cradle to the grave nanny state,  it's small potatoes compared to what the right wants. 

For sure.  We can look at the levels of crazy and right now the crazy right is much much further along.  Maybe the left will never catch up but there is every opportunity for them to make some real progress.

No one in the "mainstream of the Republican party" has promoted eliminating elections or making the POTUS unlimited (show me I'm wrong).  I mean yeah there are idiots like that in the idiot fringe but not in Congress and for every one of those there is going to be an example on the left who want full on Marxism and who want to do things like remove the right to own property.

Me like Peter Meijer.  Stand up and take the fight.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

 

No one in the "mainstream of the Republican party" has promoted eliminating elections or making the POTUS unlimited (show me I'm wrong).  

Sure they have. It was posted in this thread. Overturning elections if you don't vote the way we tell you to, is exactly the same as not having them at all. If you would prefer that I say the republican party wants to do away with free and fair elections and replace them with with election processes similar to what Russia and North Korea have where Putin and Un always win with 99% of the vote, fine. It's the same as eliminating elections though. 

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

For sure.  We can look at the levels of crazy and right now the crazy right is much much further along.  Maybe the left will never catch up but there is every opportunity for them to make some real progress.

No one in the "mainstream of the Republican party" has promoted eliminating elections or making the POTUS unlimited (show me I'm wrong).  I mean yeah there are idiots like that in the idiot fringe but not in Congress and for every one of those there is going to be an example on the left who want full on Marxism and who want to do things like remove the right to own property.

Is the president and leader of the party not the mainstream now? Did you have a stroke for two months where they insisted the election result needed to be overturned?

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Sure they have. It was posted in this thread. Overturning elections if you don't vote the way we tell you to, is exactly the same as not having them at all. If you would prefer that I say the republican party wants to do away with free and fair elections and replace them with with election processes similar to what Russia and North Korea have where Putin and Un always win with 99% of the vote, fine. It's the same as eliminating elections though. 

Overturning an election based on fraud is not the same as "eliminating elections".  Anyway, we can split hairs there but no need to.  The attempt by a chunk of them to overturn this election was reprehensible as there was no systematic fraud.  Anyway, the majority of Senators ultimately did not stand behind the formal objections so a bit of a stretch to lump the entire party in that bracket.  None the less your point is a good one.

 

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Overturning an election based on fraud is not the same as "eliminating elections".  Anyway, we can split hairs there but no need to.  The attempt by a chunk of them to overturn this election was reprehensible as there was no systematic fraud.  Anyway, the majority of Senators ultimately did not stand behind the formal objections so a bit of a stretch to lump the entire party in that bracket.  None the less your point is a good one.

 

Not really.  That bracket includes the President, who the vast majority of the party is in the process of once again bowing down to. 

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Overturning an election based on fraud is not the same as "eliminating elections".  Anyway, we can split hairs there but no need to. 

 

Just stop. There was no basis of fraud. We all know this. You can admit it was a lie.

Quote

The attempt by a chunk of them to overturn this election was reprehensible as there was no systematic fraud.  Anyway, the majority of Senators ultimately did not stand behind the formal objections so a bit of a stretch to lump the entire party in that bracket.  None the less your point is a good one.

By "chunk", are you referring to the 120 house reps,  6 senators, and the president himself? That's virtually a majority of the party saying they only want elections in which they win. 

5 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Not really.  That bracket includes the President, who the vast majority of the party is in the process of once again bowing down to. 

That's true.  I'm still holding out hope that the majority of Senators end up with some degree of reasonablness.  The fact that they didn't object to the vote was a very tiny step but a step none the less.

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This MF'er spittin

 

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That's true.  I'm still holding out hope that the majority of Senators end up with some degree of reasonablness.  The fact that they didn't object to the vote was a very tiny step but a step none the less.

what? 45 out of 50 voted that the impeachment trial is somehow unconstitutional.   

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

what? 45 out of 50 voted that the impeachment trial is somehow unconstitutional.   

That one is hard to grasp.

34 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Overturning an election based on fraud is not the same as "eliminating elections". 

 

Yeah once they do it once, they would stop and never do it again. If it's one thing the republican party has shown us its that they would never overreach. 

30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Just stop. There was no basis of fraud. We all know this. You can admit it was a lie.

By "chunk", are you referring to the 120 house reps,  6 senators, and the president himself? That's virtually a majority of the party saying they only want elections in which they win. 

Just now, Gannan said:

add to that the over 70mil that voted for trump and yes, dumpsterism is the mainstream ideology of the GOP right now. 

28 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I'm still holding out hope that the majority of Senators end up with some degree of reasonablness.  

The majority of republican senators are going to acquit the leader of a violent coup whose sole purpose was to overthrow our democracy and install a dictatorship. Yeah, totally reasonable. 

8 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Yeah once they do it once, they would stop and never do it again. If it's one thing the republican party has shown us its that they would never overreach. 

Could be but I would certainly hope that wouldn’t be the case. I’m quite sure the majority of party members and leaders don’t think that would happen and wouldn’t want it to happen but of course they could certainly get caught up in it again. Certainly as long as Trump is around. 

Quick someone do a math exercise and tell me what % of Repubs in Congress voted to formally object to the vote relative to their overall power to object. Keep in mind that a Senator gets 1% of power and a Rep 1/435. Btw - The POTUS did not get a vote. 

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Could be but I would certainly hope that wouldn’t be the case. I’m quite sure the majority of party members and leaders don’t think that would happen and wouldn’t want it to happen but of course they could certainly get caught up in it again. Certainly as long as Trump is around. 

Wow, it would absolutely be the case. Elections are invalid if republicans don't win. They've made that abundantly clear. You're seeing what you want to see, and trying to find hope where there is none.