A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 718 of 725
More ranting from 6ix to show his Dad (or Mom?) and psychiatrists appointed by the court:
6ixStringJack: The only way you can argue that TRUTH is if you are in favor of your wives and daughters and sisters and nieces being raped by Muslims on the regular, you sick fuck.
6ixStringJack: “The position of the Government of Spain can be summed up in three words,” said Sánchez in a televised address Wednesday morning. “No to war. Twenty-three years ago, another U.S. Administration dragged us into a war in the Middle East. A war which, in theory, was said at the time to be waged to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, to bring democracy, and to guarantee global security but.. it unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity that our continent had suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” CORRECTION: The EU allowing 53 MILLION MUSLIMS in your borders since 9/11 is what unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity your continent has suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
More ranting from 6ix to show his Dad (or Mom?) and psychiatrists appointed by the court:
6ixStringJack: The only way you can argue that TRUTH is if you are in favor of your wives and daughters and sisters and nieces being raped by Muslims on the regular, you sick fuck.
6ixStringJack: “The position of the Government of Spain can be summed up in three words,” said Sánchez in a televised address Wednesday morning. “No to war. Twenty-three years ago, another U.S. Administration dragged us into a war in the Middle East. A war which, in theory, was said at the time to be waged to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, to bring democracy, and to guarantee global security but.. it unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity that our continent had suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” CORRECTION: The EU allowing 53 MILLION MUSLIMS in your borders since 9/11 is what unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity your continent has suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Don't worry, buddy.
I've already posted these truths in the Tags thread where I'm recording all the stuff you were hoping would age off because you're a coward and a fucking idiot.
Your world is dead, loser.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why Are Democrats Struggling to Respond to Trump’s Iran War?
Some lawmakers have a clear message on the war. The party’s leaders are not among them.
By Jim Newell | March 04, 2026 11:45 AM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/03/trump-iran-war-democrats-r
esponse.html
Something has been missing from Democrats’ response to the war in Iran since President Donald Trump announced “major combat operations” early Saturday morning. Party leaders’ focus, so far, has only been on the process.
“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, summing up the prevailing sentiment in his party. His Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, similarly called for more information.
Undoubtedly the process complaints are merited, as there hasn’t really been a process. Trump made no attempt to sell the war to either the public or Congress, and days into it, the administration can’t get its story straight about why the war was necessary or what the goal of it is.
But Democrats’ focus on process papers over fractures in the underlying policy itself: Is war against Iran a good idea, or not? While the left is comfortable outwardly opposing it and some in the center support it, the broad middle hasn’t found its footing. If the war becomes a debacle, have no doubt that just about every Democrat in office will rush to say that they knew it was a terrible idea from the get-go. But many Democrats have a long and well-documented history of hawkishness toward Iran, jumbling their thoughts and muddling their response.
On the poles of the party, at least, you will get some clear answers.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, for example—two of the most progressive Democratic senators—have been willing to say the magic words that have eluded much of their caucus: “No war with Iran.” This is not a difficult question for them. The president is deeply unpopular, in part because he’s viewed as focused too much on stray pet projects and foreign policy instead of the cost of living, and now he wants to attack Iran for reasons that he can’t articulate and with objectives that change by the hour? He’s doing this in a way that exposes serious fissures within his own party? He says “That’s the way it is” about American soldiers dying? Why, from these senators’ points of view—on both policy and politics—is this even a question? No war with Iran!
More centrist Democratic members and those with long track records of supporting Israel, meanwhile, are openly supportive of Operation Epic Fury. New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer celebrated the administration for taking “decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies, and stand with the Iranian people.” Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz, meanwhile—before hostilities started—had referred to a resolution requiring Trump to cease hostilities with Iran as the “Ayatollah Protection Act.” And Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, long the most vocal supporter of Israel among Senate Democrats, has been trashing his party for not being more supportive of the strikes.
The broad peloton of Democrats, though, are pairing every procedural complaint under the sun with to-be-clear paragraphs about how they, too, believe the Iranian regime must be dealt with. Schumer in his statement, noted that “Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity.” Jeffries said that Iran “must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region,” but that Trump needed to come before Congress.
Schumer and Jeffries, like many Democrats, have a long history o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Why Are Democrats Struggling to Respond to Trump’s Iran War?
Because they're fucking retarded and your party is dead.
Duh.
Quote:
“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, summing up the prevailing sentiment in his party. His Senate counterpart, Chuck Schumer, similarly called for more information.
They have to do no such thing.
Go ahead and put it to a vote so Trump can veto it and send it back where you're going to need a 2/3rds vote in support of it in both chambers to keep Trump from doing what he's doing.
You stupid motherfuckers suck. You hold no power and will never hold any power again.
Pat yourselves on the back. You did this.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreaming of a Blue Texas
Will economic progress turn Texas progressive?
By Paul Krugman | Mar 05, 2026
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/dreaming-of-a-blue-texas
Now, per capita income probably isn’t the big driver of differences in political orientation across states. Education levels are almost surely far more important. In fact, there’s a startlingly strong relationship between the percentage of a state’s population over the age of 25 with a bachelor’s degree or more and the way it voted in 2024:
Source: American Community Survey, New York Times
If you look at the chart above, you see, first, that Texas does not have an especially highly educated population. Why not? Mainly because the state hasn’t been especially attractive to industries that employ large numbers of highly educated workers. A few years ago there was a lot of hype about Austin rivaling Silicon Valley as a technology hub, but that move has largely fizzled.
The second thing you see from the chart is that Texas’s political orientation isn’t dramatically different from what you would expect if all you knew about the state was its education level. The share of highly educated adults in Texas is intermediate between that in deep blue states and deep red states; its Republican lean is also somewhere in between.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Dreaming of a Blue Texas
Will economic progress turn Texas progressive?
Not in a Million Years, Paul.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's funny that you two dumbfucks stop posting anything here after business hours.
Not that I'm accusing either of you of being paid agents or anything. You're both far too stupid for anybody to pay you to do anything but be first-line agitators in the streets to "die for the cause", because you're both stupid and worthless.
But it's because the Legacy Media clocks out by then, and you both have zero ability for critical thinking or coming up with any ideas of your own.
So when the media stops posting stories for the day, your brains both go into power-down mode.
You're like two inert sponges. Completely useless until you've been given your marching orders for the day.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you two idiots have already been thoroughly destroyed this morning with more than half of your TDS articles and clickbait videos thrown right in the fuckin' trash where they belong already.
I've got shit to do today, losers.
I'll be back later to destroy whatever bullshit you waste your day posting.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Democrats Learned the Wrong Lesson From 2024
The party still refuses to prioritize the most important parts of its agenda and make the case that they’re worth paying for.
By Ben Ritz | March 18, 2026, 7 AM ET
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/democrats-slopulism-economic
-policy/686419/
Despite Donald Trump’s promises, America has not been Made Affordable Again. This has created an immense political opportunity for his opponents. But Democratic lawmakers are failing just as badly to articulate an alternative vision. Instead, some of them seem to be trying to out-Trump the president with their own brand of “slopulism”—half-baked policy proposals that sound good only if you don’t think too hard about them, and that would, if enacted, hurt the people they’re supposed to help. Others are simply reheating the leftovers of Joe Biden’s agenda. Few are reckoning with the fundamental problem that led to the party’s defeat in 2024: an inability to prioritize the most important parts of its agenda and make the case that they’re worth paying for.
These shortcomings might not prevent Democrats from riding an anti-Trump backlash to success in the midterms, but they could doom the chances of any future Democratic administration governing successfully.
Senators Cory Booker and Chris Van Hollen recently unveiled bills that would exempt most middle-class households from paying any federal income taxes. Booker’s plan would more than double the standard deduction, to $75,000 per couple, and increase the child tax credit to be even more generous than it was under Biden’s COVID-era expansion. Van Hollen’s would essentially create a parallel income-tax system under which a couple’s first $92,000 of income is exempt. His bill in particular appears to have broad support within the party, rolling out with 18 Senate co-sponsors and a slew of endorsements from major labor unions and activist groups.
Annie Lowrey: The last Americans really paying taxes
The political appeal of these ideas is obvious enough. Affordability is everyone’s favorite buzzword right now, and lowering taxes lets voters keep more of their paycheck to spend. Trump’s policies to cut taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits proved so popular that congressional Democrats are fighting to expand them. Why not go even bigger and prove that Democrats are the real party of the middle class by offering even more tax relief than Republicans?
One problem is that these policies are regressive. High-income Americans tend to benefit the most from deductions because they pay steeper tax rates on their income. As a result, a childless couple with $175,000 of income would benefit from Booker’s proposal twice as much as one with a $75,000 income. Under Van Hollen’s, a couple that makes $100,000 would benefit six times as much as a couple that earns $50,000. Such an outcome undermines progressives’ general goal of providing the most support to those most in need, without having the benefit of advancing another component of their agenda. This helps explain why both proposals were immediately panned by experts of all ideological stripes within the Democratic Party.
The bigger problem with these plans is that they are very expensive. Van Hollen’s proposal would cost roughly $1.6 trillion over 10 years. That would be more than triple the spending and tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, and yet Van Hollen’s plan is cheap compared with Booker’s, which would cost nearly $7 trillion over the same period. Both senators have promised to cover the cost with taxes on corporations and very rich households. But even if that were to happen, it would jeopardize everything else voters expect from the Democratic Party, such as expanding health-care access and investing in clean energy. There is a mathematical limit on how much additional revenue can be generated from raising taxes on high-income households, and offsetting Booker’s plan would require consuming about half of it. The real-world political limit is much lower. If the entire universe of plau
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There Will Be No Post-Presidential Peace for Donald Trump
The president and his allies will face impeachments, lawsuits, and maybe even The Hague.
Matt Ford | March 19, 2026
https://newrepublic.com/article/207369/trump-post-presidency-accountab
ility-hague
Donald Trump spent the first year of his second term trying to signal his strength, his impunity, and his permanence in American public life. When House Republicans gathered at the Kennedy Center in early January for a policy summit, he struck a much more vulnerable tone. “You got to win the midterms, because if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just going to be—I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me,” Trump told the assembled lawmakers. “I’ll get impeached.”
The event appropriately symbolized Trump’s first year as president. It was held at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a once-respected cultural institution that Trump took over and, using his handpicked board of directors, illegally renamed after himself. The wave of boycotts that followed led Trump to then announce, in February, that the center would be closed for at least two years, ostensibly for repairs and perhaps for eventual demolition.
The shuttering of the Kennedy Center may be the least of Trump’s second-term sins. In the first year since returning to power, Trump and his subordinates have pushed the country toward fascism and oligarchy. He has turned Washington into an orgy of corruption and self-dealing beyond even the most cynical observer’s imagination. He has transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol into a lawless paramilitary force that has besieged American cities and killed at least five U.S. citizens and 22 foreign nationals. He has abused Americans and their immigrant neighbors alike simply because he can.
A rundown of the Trump administration’s scandals and crimes resembles, with shocking likeness, the grave, sweeping charges laid out in the Declaration of Independence against the last American king. “He has excited domestic insurrections against us,” the Founding Fathers wrote about George III in 1776. Is there any better way of describing Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021? He supported a violent mob aiming to overthrow the government; he maintains a similar disrespect for the institutions of American democracy to this day. In early February, he threatened to “nationalize” American elections in a lawless and perhaps impossible bid to keep Democrats from retaking Congress.
The similarities do not end there. The declaration describes the king “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world” and “imposing taxes on us without our consent.” Sound familiar? Since last spring, Trump has used a Cold War–era sanctions law to unilaterally impose trillions of dollars in tariffs upon American customers and businesses. The law makes no mention of tariffs, and in February the Supreme Court accordingly struck them down.
Foremost among the Founders’ fears of threats to liberty was the potential misuse of the military. Trump, to borrow their phrasing, “has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.” In a show of propagandistic force, he has stationed thousands of National Guard troops from around the country within the District of Columbia despite the opposition of local government. The president frequently threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act to send military forces into Democratic-led states and cities.
Trump, like his royal predecessor, “has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.” Trump’s immigration raids against Democratic-led cities and states—Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis—appear to be at least partially punitive for their not voting for him in the presidential elections. On multiple occasions, out of apparent spite, Trump has also frozen congressionally appropriated programs and blocked infrastructure funding to blue states. He apparently intends to treat half of the country not as fellow citizens, but as conquered subject
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME