A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 450 of 725
AOC Proves Haters wrong in FANTASTIC video highlighting progressive accomplishments
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The U.S. Shouldn’t Be the World’s Leader
We, and no other country, left the Paris climate agreement. We, and no other signatory to the Iran nuclear deal, left the Iran nuclear deal. We, in the middle of a pandemic, and no other country, left the World Health Organization. We invaded Iraq in clear violation of international law. We have basically made the World Trade Organization dysfunctional because we have vetoed all appointments to its main panel. Our record of not ratifying international treaties on things like preservation of the oceans; the rights of women, children, and the disabled; the regulation of arms sales; the regulation of cluster bombs; nuclear nonproliferation; war crimes; and genocide is unparalleled among any country in the world. And I think the American exceptionalist narrative—which simply takes American innocence as a given so that when we do things that are wrong, it’s simply a mistake, it’s out of character, but when other countries do things that violate international law, that’s a reflection of who they really are—I just think a lot of people in the world don’t buy that. …
Given the set of experiences that we’ve seen from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan, I think the onus has to be now on people who want the United States to intervene aggressively in regime change operations to be able to prove convincingly that there’s a very strong likelihood of a positive outcome.
I don’t think it’s quite right to say the United States has withdrawn. I would say the United States has wielded its power in different ways. The United States has been extremely unilateral, levying sanctions on all kinds of countries, even countries that are traditionally our allies. We were not great about signing up for international agreements already, but we’ve withdrawn now from a kind of unprecedented number of them. What we’ve seen with Trump is not, as I think it’s sometimes described, isolationism, but unilateralism—essentially the notion that American power should be bounded by no authority, legal or moral, beyond what America sees as is in its own narrow self-interest. I think that that has really eroded whatever was left of the belief in much of the world that the United States was pursuing a kind of common good in the world.
If you look at George W. Bush’s administration, the Bush administration not only would not enter the International Criminal Court because of the fear that we might one day be prosecuted, but it basically gave the United States the right to virtually take military action to ensure that the International Criminal Court never brought proceedings against the United States. So basically the position of the United States is by definition our behavior should never be subject to international moral standards of human rights behavior. What Trump has done is essentially taken that logic even further. But that logic has a deep history in American foreign policy. He did not invent it. And I think it’s part of the reason that other countries look at the United States and say, “On what moral authority do you claim to have to exercise the right of moral leadership for the world?”
Pretty consistently, polling does not suggest that Americans want to withdraw from the world and have America have no role, but neither do they want America to be the single dominant force. Mostly what they want, even if it sounds kind of soft and mushy, is cooperation. They want America to be one country cooperating with other countries. So there’s actually, in public opinion, a surprising amount of support for this and surprisingly little support for the notion of America as the single dominant power, which is often popular in foreign policy circles.
There is often a tendency in foreign policy discourse to associate America’s global footprint, particularly its global military footprint—you know, who has more power in Syria or in the Caucasus, Russia or the United States?—to associate that with the well-being of ordinary Americans. And if there’s one thing we can take away from the Trump experience and the fact that he wa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government study shows taxpayers are subsidizing “starvation wages” at McDonald's, Walmart
Sen. Bernie Sanders called the findings "morally obscene"
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/12/government-study-shows-taxpayers-are-
subsidizing-starvation-wages-at-mcdonalds-walmart/
Millions of Americans employed at some of the country's largest companies have had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid, with giants like Walmart and McDonald's employing the most workers whose income is subsidized by taxpayers, according to a new study.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, released a study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last month based on data provided by 11 states.
The report found that, in every state studied, Walmart was one of the top four employers whose workers rely on food stamps and Medicaid. McDonald's is among the most subsidized employers in at least nine states.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Government study shows taxpayers are subsidizing “starvation wages” at McDonald's, Walmart
Sen. Bernie Sanders called the findings "morally obscene"
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/12/government-study-shows-taxpayers-are-
subsidizing-starvation-wages-at-mcdonalds-walmart/
And what Cabinet position did Bernie get, again?
If democrats* don't do any different, how are they any better?
And when Biden* fails to keep his promises - or even promote them - I'll be happy to laugh at his skinny saggy ass parading all over town in his New Clothes™.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a baldly seditious lawsuit calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and hand their electoral votes to Trump. It was flatly an attempt to overturn the 2020 election, end constitutional government, and install Trump in power. Before the Supreme Court threw the suit out Friday night, 17 other Republican state attorneys general had joined him, along with 126 members of the Republican caucus in the House, while Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has agreed to represent Trump. And this is just one of dozens of attempts that Republicans at all levels of government have concocted to overturn Trump's loss.
The political situation in this country have not been this bad since 1860. The logical endgame of the rapidly-accelerating Republican attempt to destroy democracy would be civil war — if it weren't for the high probability that Democratic leaders would be too cowardly to fight.
But it's worth thinking about what a party seriously committed to preserving democracy would do when faced with a seditious opposition party — namely, cut them out of power and force them to behave. Democrats could declare all traitors ineligible to serve in national office, convene a Patriot Congress composed solely of people who have not committed insurrection against the American government, and use that power to re-entrench democracy.
The reasoning here is very simple. All members of Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which establishes a republican form of government. The whole point of a republic is that contests for power are conducted through a framework of rules and democratic elections, where all parties agree to respect the result whether they lose or win. Moreover, the premise of this lawsuit was completely preposterous — arguing in effect that states should not be allowed to set their own election rules if that means more Democrats can vote — and provides no evidence whatsoever for false allegations of tens of thousands of instances of voter fraud. Indeed, several of the representatives who support the lawsuit were themselves just elected by the very votes they now say are fraudulent. The proposed remedy — having Republican-dominated legislatures in only the four states that gave Biden his margin of victory select Trump electors — would be straight-up election theft.
In other words, this lawsuit, even though it didn't succeed, is a flagrant attempt to overturn the constitutional system and impose through authoritarian means the rule of a corrupt criminal whose doltish incompetence has gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed. It is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process," as the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin jointly wrote in their response to Texas trying to steal their elections.
The Constitution, as goofy and jerry-rigged as it is, stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]" How the Supreme Court ruled, or whether Republicans actually believe their lunatic claims, is irrelevant. It's still insurrection even if it doesn't work out.
Democrats would have every right, both under the Constitution and under the principle of popular sovereignty outlined in the Declaration of Independence, to convene a traitor-free Congress (also including similar acts committed by Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and others), and pass such laws as would be necessary to preserve the American republic. That might include a nationa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
History will be unkind to those who currently occupy republican seats in congress. Only tribalism will get any of them reelected. Even so, they will have a black stain next to their name.
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
81,200,000 people want to know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME