More lopsidedly strong Democratic performances yesterday

@Soothfast said
Now all Republicans are concerned about is tip-toeing around and toadying to Dear Leader, lest he single one of them out for a schoolyard-level excoriation on his downward-spiraling Truth Social network.

Even if you are a Republican, I gotta imagine you're super embarrassed to witness what the Grand Ol' Party has become. It's nothing but sycophants and fascists, with no agenda, no principles, no morals.

@wildgrass said
Limited government was the conceptual framework for understanding Republican policy.

That's gone.

If you look at what it meant to be a Democrat in the 1990's, basically nothing has changed. But Republicans have pretty much abandoned everything that used to get my Dad's vote, and have now adopted a vision of government dominated by big spending on surveillance states, ...[text shortened]... afford it. Invest in death.

He's not here, but I don't think my dad would be a Republican today.

Are you serious?

Bill Clinton, circa 1996-ish, would be drummed out of today's Democratic party faster than you can say Kirsten Sinema or Joe Manchin.

You think a current Dem politician could support tough welfare reform or the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" today and live to tell about it?

Edit: Let's see them nominate John Fetterman for re-election in '28. Then you can come back and tell me all about how the Dem party is still so big-tent.

@wildgrass said
Even if you are a Republican, I gotta imagine you're super embarrassed to witness what the Grand Ol' Party has become. It's nothing but sycophants and fascists, with no agenda, no principles, no morals.

I am embarrassed to witness what the GOP has become.

The only thing I can say for the GOP is that it's saner than the Bernie/Zorhan/AOCs of the world.

@sh76 said
Are you serious?

Bill Clinton, circa 1996-ish, would be drummed out of today's Democratic party faster than you can say Kirsten Sinema or Joe Manchin.

You think a current Dem politician could support tough welfare reform or the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" today and live to tell about it?

Edit: Let's see them nominate John Fetterman for re-election in '28. Then you can come back and tell me all about how the Dem party is still so big-tent.

What? You seem to be living in another universe. Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention 2 years ago. He campaigned for Kamala in Wisconsin and Michigan and Georgia last year. He's still widely popular among Democrats. I dunno how you can say he was (would be?) drummed out?

Joe Biden and Barack Obama had more-or-less the same political leanings as Clinton did.

All three are widely considered moderates.

All three presidents reduced deficit spending.

I don't know much about Fetterman, other than that he is one of the senators that barely shows up for work. He doesn't seem all that with it.

Meanwhile basically every Republican presidential nominee other than Trump in the last 30 years has been shunned by their own party.

@wildgrass said
What? You seem to be living in another universe. Clinton was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention 2 years ago. He campaigned for Kamala in Wisconsin and Michigan and Georgia last year. He's still widely popular among Democrats. I dunno how you can say he was (would be?) drummed out?

Joe Biden and Barack Obama had more-or-less the same political leani ...[text shortened]... ican presidential nominee other than Trump in the last 30 years has been shunned by their own party.

Yeah, Clinton is a good figurehead, but there's no way today's Dems would agree to a Clinton agenda of the mid 1990s. Read about what Clinton had to say about crime, welfare, deregulation, and illegal immigration. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which would practically get him labelled a Nazi by today's left wingers.

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


You think the Democratic part of today would go anywhere within a country mile of any of these things? LMAO!

Just read the titles of these acts, for crying out loud.

@wildgrass said
I don't know much about Fetterman, other than that he is one of the senators that barely shows up for work. He doesn't seem all that with it.

Ha! So that's the party line you're going to use as an excuse when they primary Fetterman?

@sh76 said
Yeah, Clinton is a good figurehead, but there's no way today's Dems would agree to a Clinton agenda of the mid 1990s. Read about what Clinton had to say about crime, welfare, deregulation, and illegal immigration. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which would practically get him labelled a Nazi by today's left wingers.

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe ...[text shortened]... untry mile of any of these things? LMAO!

Just read the titles of these acts, for crying out loud.

That's just completely false. I don't know where you're getting your information about what today's Dems would agree to or not based on what Clinton already did. Why aren't you citing RECENT legislation? Did you see the immigration bill that the Dems wrote in 2024? It was the most sweeping anti illegal immigration legislation ever.

Why would Dems do again what they already did? They are absolutely always interested in reducing deficit spending and they have done that every time there's a Democrat in the White House.

The Defense of Marriage Act? I remember Clinton signed it reluctantly and then it was struck down by the Supreme Court. We're past that now, culturally, which has nothing to do with Democrats.

Anti-terrorism Act? Are you trying to say that Democrats are not anti-terrorist?

There's nothing really materially different about today's Democratic party compared to Clinton's. Time has passed, that's it. Democrats want a balanced budget.

Republicans have gone whole hog big government, which is completely, fundamentally, philosophically the opposite of the entire foundation of the party. Mitt Romney? Outcast. John McCain? Outcast. Michael Steele? Outcast. Paul Ryan? Outcast. George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. this goes on and on. These people who were once thought leaders of the party are nowhere to be found (or dead), and every single one of them are disgusted with current Republicans.

Bill Clinton is still giving keynote speeches at the DNC and actively campaigning for Democratic candidates. His party is largely the same.

@sh76 said
Ha! So that's the party line you're going to use as an excuse when they primary Fetterman?

I don't know what this means.

@wildgrass said
I don't know what this means.

You're a smart guy. You'll figure it out.

@sh76 said
Yeah, Clinton is a good figurehead, but there's no way today's Dems would agree to a Clinton agenda of the mid 1990s. Read about what Clinton had to say about crime, welfare, deregulation, and illegal immigration. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which would practically get him labelled a Nazi by today's left wingers.

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe ...[text shortened]... untry mile of any of these things? LMAO!

Just read the titles of these acts, for crying out loud.

Obama was still saying he believed marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman until years after the 2008 election.

I'm not sure progressives now are any further to the Left than the ones I watched on C-SPAN in the House when I was going to college in the 1980s - the Dellums, Downey, Holtzman, etc. wing of the party. But neither than nor now do progressives control the Democratic party.

@sh76 said
Ha! So that's the party line you're going to use as an excuse when they primary Fetterman?

Fetterman being the only Democrat in the Senate to oppose limitations on Trump's war making in Iran will probably be enough to trigger a primary challenge.

@sh76 said
Yeah, Clinton is a good figurehead, but there's no way today's Dems would agree to a Clinton agenda of the mid 1990s. Read about what Clinton had to say about crime, welfare, deregulation, and illegal immigration. He also signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which would practically get him labelled a Nazi by today's left wingers.

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe ...[text shortened]... untry mile of any of these things? LMAO!

Just read the titles of these acts, for crying out loud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

Considering this one was aimed at right wing white partisan terrorists I think they might be willing.

@sh76 said
You're a smart guy. You'll figure it out.

From what I can gather, Fetterman is a no name politician with a scarce legislative record and a weird policy agenda. But you think if the Democrats don't nominate him for president then that proves they are radical leftists?

Correct me if I'm wrong I'm summarizing your argument.

@sh76 said
Are you serious?

Bill Clinton, circa 1996-ish, would be drummed out of today's Democratic party faster than you can say Kirsten Sinema or Joe Manchin.

You think a current Dem politician could support tough welfare reform or the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" today and live to tell about it?

Edit: Let's see them nominate John Fetterman for re-election in '28. Then you can come back and tell me all about how the Dem party is still so big-tent.

You think a current Dem politician could support tough welfare reform or the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" today and live to tell about it?

Hillary Clinton would and could have. She had much experience also as our "Department of War" leader; and being our first lady for eight years. Much more experience than our current child-molester and lawless liar and thief in office; whom she lost too.

@no1marauder said
Fetterman being the only Democrat in the Senate to oppose limitations on Trump's war making in Iran will probably be enough to trigger a primary challenge.

So this.