Romney believes in his policies as being better for the people and is concerned about his legacy and place his history.
That makes him better by default than basically any other Republican currently serving but at that point the bar is so low that it’s subterranean.
His legacy is that photo of him having dinner with Trump.
His legacy is probably being the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump the first time.
That and being the first Mormon to lead a major ticket will be 22nd century Jeopardy politics geek questions at best.
And yes, Romney, Kinzinger, and a handful of other elected Republicans have the courage of their convictions. The problem is that those convictions are still Conservative Republican and fucking terrible in the face of all the evidence that tax cuts and deregulation don't work. Also, that it's literally only a handful of people with that courage in the face of an armed insurrection against the principle of American Democracy.
+23
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Another thing to keep in mind about Romney's motivation: you just fucking know the dude hasn't forgiven himself for not running in 2016.
Another thing to keep in mind about Romney's motivation: you just fucking know the dude hasn't forgiven himself for not running in 2016.
Republican voters would still have picked Trump. They were done with serious, sensible business candidates. They wanted chaos.
+38
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Another thing to keep in mind about Romney's motivation: you just fucking know the dude hasn't forgiven himself for not running in 2016.
Republican voters would still have picked Trump. They were done with serious, sensible business candidates. They wanted chaos.
I disagree. It's easy to forget how loatheful and anti-charismatic the playing field was when Trump ran. People hated him even within his own party. He had an extremely loud constituency, but he didn't get to cult levels until after the narrowly won election.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Another thing to keep in mind about Romney's motivation: you just fucking know the dude hasn't forgiven himself for not running in 2016.
Republican voters would still have picked Trump. They were done with serious, sensible business candidates. They wanted chaos.
I disagree. It's easy to forget how loatheful and anti-charismatic the playing field was when Trump ran. People hated him even within his own party. He had an extremely loud constituency, but he didn't get to cult levels until after the narrowly won election.
Eh, there were some normal candidates like poor old Jeb!
We don't have to guess, there was reporting on this. Trump was seriously considering Romney but he feared blowback from his base. The media leaks and publicized dinner were there precisely to gauge the reaction of "his" people to the idea and he was convinced to change course.
That doesn't mean he wanted Romney come hell or high water. He just happened to be a pretty high profile guy that wanted the job, and as long as he groveled and did Trump's bidding (as Trump expected the entire executive to do) then he would be welcome. Tillerson a media nobody was surely not Trump's own idea, the right kind of wurmtounge had to put that into his ear.
We don't have to guess, there was reporting on this. Trump was seriously considering Romney but he feared blowback from his base. The media leaks and publicized dinner were there precisely to gauge the reaction of "his" people to the idea and he was convinced to change course.
That doesn't mean he wanted Romney come hell or high water. He just happened to be a pretty high profile guy that wanted the job, and as long as he groveled and did Trump's bidding (as Trump expected the entire executive to do) then he would be welcome. Tillerson a media nobody was surely not Trump's own idea, the right kind of wurmtounge had to put that into his ear.
This sounds like waaaaay more effort than Trump put into any nomination
We don't have to guess, there was reporting on this. Trump was seriously considering Romney but he feared blowback from his base. The media leaks and publicized dinner were there precisely to gauge the reaction of "his" people to the idea and he was convinced to change course.
That doesn't mean he wanted Romney come hell or high water. He just happened to be a pretty high profile guy that wanted the job, and as long as he groveled and did Trump's bidding (as Trump expected the entire executive to do) then he would be welcome. Tillerson a media nobody was surely not Trump's own idea, the right kind of wurmtounge had to put that into his ear.
This sounds like waaaaay more effort than Trump put into any nomination
The first round of cabinet recruits was full of media "leaks." They were absolutely putting effort into that first round of picks. That said actual ability to do the job was at basement levels of irrelevance, it was more how the person looked, especially on TV, plus how the republican base + officials were reacting. Just because a person had zero qualifications doesn't mean that zero deliberation went into their recruitment.
Romney's legacy is the being the racist motherfucker who explicitly courted Trump's endorsement to win the Republican primary.
Yeah, the idea that Romney is principled is a fucking joke. His principles are only as strong as his ability to hold office despite making some republicans mad at him.
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited May 2021
No one here is defending or making excuses for Romney's history of scumbaggery. Some of us are just implying there might be a trace amount of principle that could explain some of his decisions as a member of the federal legislature in which he is somewhat less of a scumbag than his colleagues.
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
For what it’s worth back when Romney started them the play was make the acquired company pay Bain Consulting managing fees to make them profitable again
Bain Capital does the buyout and hires Bain Consulting to run the company back to profitability to sell it and earn more for Bain Capital
It was house flipping for businesses
They learned they get more return for effort with the version we see today
But again there’s no such thing as a good Republican because they would have left the party
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
For guys like Romney, absolutely. The idea is basically if I can make money off the poor fortune of others, and break no laws doing it, I'm simply using my great smarts to exploit a weakness in the system, and ultimately by my exploiting that weakness, the overall system is stronger for it.
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
I mean, no, or yes. It sort of depends on if you're a leftist. If you're a leftist and you generally buy a Marxist or sufficiently Marxist critique of capitalism then you think that the whole point is for one class of people to increase their wealth at the expense of others.
If you are a capitalist, or maybe even just not interested in the Marxist line, you might think that the point of Capitalism is to allow for lots of economic activity that is impossible without it. Investment of capital requires the existence of things like stocks and ways to reduce the risk on investing. I mean capitalism arose at the same time as things like buying a stake in a lot of sailing ships rather than investing everything in one (so that if one of ten sinks, you don't lose everything). It's only inherently predatory if you accept the sort of Marxist labor theory of value, which Romney probably doesn't.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
I mean, no, or yes. It sort of depends on if you're a leftist. If you're a leftist and you generally buy a Marxist or sufficiently Marxist critique of capitalism then you think that the whole point is for one class of people to increase their wealth at the expense of others.
If you are a capitalist, or maybe even just not interested in the Marxist line, you might think that the point of Capitalism is to allow for lots of economic activity that is impossible without it. Investment of capital requires the existence of things like stocks and ways to reduce the risk on investing. I mean capitalism arose at the same time as things like buying a stake in a lot of sailing ships rather than investing everything in one (so that if one of ten sinks, you don't lose everything). It's only inherently predatory if you accept the sort of Marxist labor theory of value, which Romney probably doesn't.
Aye. There's lots of critiques of various financial and business practices that rest on the idea that these things constitute a bad allocation of resources.
I honestly don’t know why we occasionally debate Romney’s morality as if he isn’t absolutely complicit in shaping today’s GOP.
At absolute best he’s a religious partisan and morally compromised venture capitalist that occasionally exhibits judgement in other people’s moral failings when it’s uncouth enough to affront him and his personal political ambitions.
I barely have the patience these days to even damn people like Romney with even the slightest of faint praise. If he wanted to do the right thing today, he could, but he doesn’t because he’s only slightly less awful and feckless as his peers. Whoopty-do. He’s not on our side and never will be.
I think the most complimentary thing I can say about him is that’s he’s not the worst human currently in the GOP.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I honestly don’t know why we occasionally debate Romney’s morality as if he isn’t absolutely complicit in shaping today’s GOP.
At absolute best he’s a religious partisan and morally compromised venture capitalist that occasionally exhibits judgement in other people’s moral failings when it’s uncouth enough to affront him and his personal political ambitions.
I barely have the patience these days to even damn people like Romney with even the slightest of faint praise. If he wanted to do the right thing today, he could, but he doesn’t because he’s only slightly less awful and feckless as his peers. Whoopty-do. He’s not on our side and never will be.
I think the most complimentary thing I can say about him is that’s he’s not the worst human currently in the GOP.
There's a socially-enforced desire to associate goodness with a pleasant appearance and demeanor. Disney logic, basically.
IMO, it's because for all we bitch about Manchin, many of us are almost as desperate for some hope or sign of a path out of where we are that doesn't lead to burning the whole country down. And that requires that there be some people on "the other side" who we disagree with, but are otherwise reasonable and sane and not deadset on either wiping us out or plunging the nation into another civil war.
Eh, I’m just personally just hoping for a schism on the right that opens a path to improvement on the left, assuming we can unclench a little
Romney (and Kasich, and Cheney, and...) won’t try this cause they know it’d most likely be a dead end to their careers and even if they succeeded at pulling support, it would mean making it easier for the illigitimate Americans to win their elections
Don't kid yourself. If the GOP split into the Trump party and old line GOP, a lot of centrists would move more towards the GOP, and yes it would move the window SOMEWHAT left, but not a huge amount.
+12
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
It's only inherently predatory if you accept the sort of Marxist labor theory of value, which Romney probably doesn't.
Well, according to the rest of the GOP he’s a communist now...
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I just want to say that I doubt the House Republicans are going to oust Liz Cheney from her role. It's not because they don't like her, but the exact same reason why they couldn't get rid of Boehner until he quit on his own- they have no actual ability to coordinate. They're a mass of grifters, Trump worshipers, failsons, and mediocrities (sometimes multiple or all four) who've either fallen upwards into place or were pushed into those places by other political actors, and thus don't really know how to do anything. Their own incompetence has gotten in the way of their malice, just as with their orange lord and god. While I am not going to give her the benefit of a doubt on her morality, ethics, or political beliefs, Cheney does seem to have a basic competence and understanding that she's surrounded by idiots who couldn't coordinate a birthday party without lobbyists and lawyers holding their hands, All she has to do is stand firm for a few weeks until they fail.
I just want to say that I doubt the House Republicans are going to oust Liz Cheney from her role. It's not because they don't like her, but the exact same reason why they couldn't get rid of Boehner until he quit on his own- they have no actual ability to coordinate. They're a mass of grifters, Trump worshipers, failsons, and mediocrities (sometimes multiple or all four) who've either fallen upwards into place or were pushed into those places by other political actors, and thus don't really know how to do anything. Their own incompetence has gotten in the way of their malice, just as with their orange lord and god. While I am not going to give her the benefit of a doubt on her morality, ethics, or political beliefs, Cheney does seem to have a basic competence and understanding that she's surrounded by idiots who couldn't coordinate a birthday party without lobbyists and lawyers holding their hands, All she has to do is stand firm for a few weeks until they fail.
They have gotten coordinated though, and this time they have things like a properly "vetted" successor in place.
Our projections found that Cruz would go "euuuuuggggh" if checked roughly into the boards by Brady Tkachuk. He would produce a sound similar to someone dumping cat food (the wet kind) into a cat’s dish from an elevation of five feet.
For Grassley, no matter how many times we ran our tests, the only result produced was a single English sentence fragment: "like driving a minivan through a large pile of autumn leaves at 70 miles per hour."
The Senators Week logo where McConnell's head is mashed with the Ottawa logo has the same captivating presence as a trainwreck, to be honest.
Ehh, I doubt Stefanik has really gotten the support of the caucus - there are several other people mentioned, along with Republican men annoyed that leadership is demanding a female successor since the entire rest of leadership is male. (And amusingly, Stefanik is a less reliable conservative vote than Cheney.)
I think Cheney is toast. She easily won the prior secret vote to remove her, but that was still within a few weeks of the insurrection that some Republicans actually felt shame about and she had the support of other leadership too. This time the #1 and #2 in the House are both publicly and privately shitting on her and wanting her gone for the crime of not being on message aka not repeating Trump's dangerous lies.
The Trump cult has taken over the GOP and Lord Donald hath decreed she is unworthy.
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
The pithy part of me wants to say we’re already there, but that diminishes the efforts the folks still trying to keep the lights for us lefties all over. But suffice to say the Democratic Party is considered by quite a few folks already to be a center-right party, including a non-zero percentage of party leadership.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
It doesn't really matter much. The whole reason Trump stole the party out from under these people is that their views have very little support among voters. It's entirely a function of rich donors and the older party elites that are still hanging on.
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
Eh, if the conservative Republicans were going to run to the Democratic party, they probably would have by now. The Republicans who have left have just become "independents" who still always vote for Republicans.
Meanwhile, while you can quibble about whether the Democratic Party is "left" or not, it's unequivocally become more progressive in the past for years, and there's not really any indication it's going to reverse direction any time soon.
Basically, look at Biden. He's the bellwether, in that he always tries to position himself in the middle of the democratic party. He's a lot more progressive than he was under Obama, because the party overall has moved left. Just like the GOP has moved right. (Or "moved crazy" if you'd prefer.) There's no middle anymore, so you're going to get fewer people moving from one party to the other.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, Trump is running in 2024, and Trump backed or supporting candidates will win in 2022. It’s the trump party now, and agreeing with whatever he says is their only platform. If you want to be a hawk conservative who doesn’t back trump, maybe join the Democratic Party
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
Eh, if the conservative Republicans were going to run to the Democratic party, they probably would have by now. The Republicans who have left have just become "independents" who still always vote for Republicans.
Meanwhile, while you can quibble about whether the Democratic Party is "left" or not, it's unequivocally become more progressive in the past for years, and there's not really any indication it's going to reverse direction any time soon.
Basically, look at Biden. He's the bellwether, in that he always tries to position himself in the middle of the democratic party. He's a lot more progressive than he was under Obama, because the party overall has moved left. Just like the GOP has moved right. (Or "moved crazy" if you'd prefer.) There's no middle anymore, so you're going to get fewer people moving from one party to the other.
Furthermore, I find the "center-right" appellation questionable when I see some of the things that left wing parties struggle with in other countries. The reality is much more complicated.
Posts
That and being the first Mormon to lead a major ticket will be 22nd century Jeopardy politics geek questions at best.
And yes, Romney, Kinzinger, and a handful of other elected Republicans have the courage of their convictions. The problem is that those convictions are still Conservative Republican and fucking terrible in the face of all the evidence that tax cuts and deregulation don't work. Also, that it's literally only a handful of people with that courage in the face of an armed insurrection against the principle of American Democracy.
Republican voters would still have picked Trump. They were done with serious, sensible business candidates. They wanted chaos.
I disagree. It's easy to forget how loatheful and anti-charismatic the playing field was when Trump ran. People hated him even within his own party. He had an extremely loud constituency, but he didn't get to cult levels until after the narrowly won election.
Eh, there were some normal candidates like poor old Jeb!
That doesn't mean he wanted Romney come hell or high water. He just happened to be a pretty high profile guy that wanted the job, and as long as he groveled and did Trump's bidding (as Trump expected the entire executive to do) then he would be welcome. Tillerson a media nobody was surely not Trump's own idea, the right kind of wurmtounge had to put that into his ear.
This sounds like waaaaay more effort than Trump put into any nomination
The first round of cabinet recruits was full of media "leaks." They were absolutely putting effort into that first round of picks. That said actual ability to do the job was at basement levels of irrelevance, it was more how the person looked, especially on TV, plus how the republican base + officials were reacting. Just because a person had zero qualifications doesn't mean that zero deliberation went into their recruitment.
Yeah, the idea that Romney is principled is a fucking joke. His principles are only as strong as his ability to hold office despite making some republicans mad at him.
There seem to be a lot of people here who can't conceive of a person who is moral in some circumstances and bad in others.
It takes a lot of courage to go against the political party you've dedicated your life to.
And anyway, Romney's business actions aren't hypocritical in any way. He believes in unfettered capitalism. He believes it is good for the country. He's not like Republicans who sing the praises of Democracy and then do their level best to ensure a one-party-state.
Hypocrisy and having bad principles are different. Romney is not a hypocrite. That doesn't mean I like his politics; I really don't.
leveraged buyouts are hypocritical bad faith capitalism.
If an action increases your personal wealth, isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Bain Capital does the buyout and hires Bain Consulting to run the company back to profitability to sell it and earn more for Bain Capital
It was house flipping for businesses
They learned they get more return for effort with the version we see today
But again there’s no such thing as a good Republican because they would have left the party
For guys like Romney, absolutely. The idea is basically if I can make money off the poor fortune of others, and break no laws doing it, I'm simply using my great smarts to exploit a weakness in the system, and ultimately by my exploiting that weakness, the overall system is stronger for it.
I mean, no, or yes. It sort of depends on if you're a leftist. If you're a leftist and you generally buy a Marxist or sufficiently Marxist critique of capitalism then you think that the whole point is for one class of people to increase their wealth at the expense of others.
If you are a capitalist, or maybe even just not interested in the Marxist line, you might think that the point of Capitalism is to allow for lots of economic activity that is impossible without it. Investment of capital requires the existence of things like stocks and ways to reduce the risk on investing. I mean capitalism arose at the same time as things like buying a stake in a lot of sailing ships rather than investing everything in one (so that if one of ten sinks, you don't lose everything). It's only inherently predatory if you accept the sort of Marxist labor theory of value, which Romney probably doesn't.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Aye. There's lots of critiques of various financial and business practices that rest on the idea that these things constitute a bad allocation of resources.
At absolute best he’s a religious partisan and morally compromised venture capitalist that occasionally exhibits judgement in other people’s moral failings when it’s uncouth enough to affront him and his personal political ambitions.
I barely have the patience these days to even damn people like Romney with even the slightest of faint praise. If he wanted to do the right thing today, he could, but he doesn’t because he’s only slightly less awful and feckless as his peers. Whoopty-do. He’s not on our side and never will be.
I think the most complimentary thing I can say about him is that’s he’s not the worst human currently in the GOP.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
There's a socially-enforced desire to associate goodness with a pleasant appearance and demeanor. Disney logic, basically.
Romney (and Kasich, and Cheney, and...) won’t try this cause they know it’d most likely be a dead end to their careers and even if they succeeded at pulling support, it would mean making it easier for the illigitimate Americans to win their elections
Well, according to the rest of the GOP he’s a communist now...
Hey guys.
The topic is "US Congress."
They have gotten coordinated though, and this time they have things like a properly "vetted" successor in place.
Or in one case, both:
The Senators Week logo where McConnell's head is mashed with the Ottawa logo has the same captivating presence as a trainwreck, to be honest.
The Trump cult has taken over the GOP and Lord Donald hath decreed she is unworthy.
That’s not great for the Democratic Party either, as we end up with the LiberalConservative party and the RagingFascist party, and no representation for the left.
The pithy part of me wants to say we’re already there, but that diminishes the efforts the folks still trying to keep the lights for us lefties all over. But suffice to say the Democratic Party is considered by quite a few folks already to be a center-right party, including a non-zero percentage of party leadership.
It doesn't really matter much. The whole reason Trump stole the party out from under these people is that their views have very little support among voters. It's entirely a function of rich donors and the older party elites that are still hanging on.
Eh, if the conservative Republicans were going to run to the Democratic party, they probably would have by now. The Republicans who have left have just become "independents" who still always vote for Republicans.
Meanwhile, while you can quibble about whether the Democratic Party is "left" or not, it's unequivocally become more progressive in the past for years, and there's not really any indication it's going to reverse direction any time soon.
Basically, look at Biden. He's the bellwether, in that he always tries to position himself in the middle of the democratic party. He's a lot more progressive than he was under Obama, because the party overall has moved left. Just like the GOP has moved right. (Or "moved crazy" if you'd prefer.) There's no middle anymore, so you're going to get fewer people moving from one party to the other.
Furthermore, I find the "center-right" appellation questionable when I see some of the things that left wing parties struggle with in other countries. The reality is much more complicated.