1070
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ianfraserkrillmaster@midwest.social 42 points 19 hours ago
[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago
[-] ianfraserkrillmaster@midwest.social 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

in terms of their motives? absolutely. is -1 a better score than -5? yes. are they both in the negative? you better believe it. don't go slobbering all over clinton and obama's loafers just because there are worse people out there. they tried to enrich the wealthy and succeeded. only difference between the dems and the republicans up until the trump era was that the dems lied about being progressive to distract from their wealth transfer and the repubs committed a casual ongoing genocide to distract from theirs. but it worked- you are distracted. from clinton deregulating corporate oversight and obama kneecapping socialized health care on behalf of the insurance industry. were bush and reagan and bush junior more harmful? yeah of course, but let's not lionize their coworkers because they used a different disingenuous strategy to launder money for their corporate masters. in the present moment, of course, it's a bit different- the republicans are stoking the engine of an outright fascist coup and the dems are spoiling the only chance we have to stop it with weak appeals to "decorum" and "practicality".

so no, they're not exactly the same. one is jabba the hutt, and the other is the little shitgoblin cackling on his tail. neither will help you. get used to it.

edit: math

[-] ArtemisimetrA@lemm.ee 12 points 19 hours ago

Now that's an infographic

[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Missed a few.

Johnson: use war to win re-election

Nixon: fight hippies and commies

Ford: pardon Nixon

Carter: attain energy independence

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 52 points 21 hours ago

Rich people are richer than ever though, so at least the red party delivered.

[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 27 points 21 hours ago

I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus, and Kennedy's program eventually got us to the moon (though he, obviously, didn't live to see it). Say what you will about the ACA. No matter what standard you take, that's at least a 2/3rds success rate for the blue party by your measure.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 18 points 21 hours ago

ACA was a huge success in the millions of additional people with healthcare. This saved lives. Lots of lives.

The possibility of Universal Healthcare was dropped: this was not a goal of ACA. Most of us expected a follow up to ACA that would do that, but too many people voted for politicians fighting against it. Despite ACA being overwhelmingly popular, it hurt Dems in elections and they really haven’t had an opportunity to do much since

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

Which let’s be real - the only reason there was opposition to the ACA was because Obama did it. It was basically RomneyCare. Most people (on the right) opposed to the ACA didn’t actually know why they didn’t like it - it was done by that uppity guy who wore a mustard suit.

My little brother has a genetic disorder - already had multiple, intensive surgeries by his tenth birthday. He would have capped out his lifetime insurance payouts around the time the ACA passed. He would probably not be able to get any form of insurance now because of his preexisting conditions, if not for the ACA.

The ACA’s problem was that it did not have a public option. We aren’t operating under a free market - insurance companies are colluding with each other and hospitals. There is no actual competition. Even if universal healthcare wasn’t a moral imperative (how the fuck do you keep up your insurance when you’re sick? when the company you work for fires you because you miss too much work?), it’s also not even being run by the rules of the “free market.”

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 19 hours ago

If I remember correctly a survey of people was done asking how they felt about "the ACA" and how they felt about "Obamacare." They approved of the ACA and HATED Obamacare...

Fucking propaganda man...

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 4 points 17 hours ago

The ACA’s problem was that it did not have a public option.

That's still rationing healthcare by wealth. The problem with the ACA is that it was written by liberals and relies on capitalism. The best healthcare systems use central planning and are free or near free.

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

I mean, agreed, but at least having the public option would drive down some prices. Our health care system is a failure even by the standards of liberal capitalism.

Rolled my ankle a few weeks ago - probably fractured it, hobbled around and now I can walk on it without hurting. No medical care - I’m saving up $300 for my blood work for my routine check up and figured that even the Urgent Care would do nothing and charge me $100 for it.

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago

The ACA gave me affordable healthcare when I was young and poor and had none.

Republicans have never even come close to doing something like that for me. Quite the opposite actually.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I would point out that, objectively, Clinton did achieve a budget surplus,

That's not even a worthwhile goal. The state can print money for whatever it wants. Clinton didn't change any of that. The state still wastes endless resources on the MIC, imperialism, etc. while many people lack basic human needs: food, shelter, healthcare, livable environment, etc.

Zero is a meaningless goal that changed absolutely nothing, especially long term.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 25 points 20 hours ago

Oops, all Heritage Foundation.

[-] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 26 points 21 hours ago

The two party system is cooked.

Nothing will get better till the two party system is a thing of the past.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 9 points 19 hours ago

Gotta switch to proportional representation if you want to break up the two parties. I suggest Sequential Proportional Approval Voting for multi-winner elections, and pair it with regular Approval Voting for single-winner elections. Both can be implemented at every level in the US, and some places can do so by referendum. Lemme know if you're interested.

[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 11 points 18 hours ago

Yeah let me ignore all the atrocities that blue presidents committed abroad, those don't count since its brown people

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago

I happen to be a fan of voting for what's best for the country I live in and the people I care about, then taking other countries into consideration after that.

Life isn't perfect. I strive for whatever is closest. And I'm smart enough to know voting 3rd party in a presidential election is dumb as fuck because no 3rd party is viable because none have done the work to become viable.

So I'll take the party that has a record of voting in favor of middle/lower class Americans over the party that only punishes average Americans and takes their rights away.

Pretty basic math.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 17 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Let's make this meme more accurate, shall we?

  • Kennedy: Imperialism, use the presidency to get laid
  • Johnson: Imperialism and expansion of social safety net
  • Nixon: Imperialism and a one-party state (But oddly gave us the EPA)
  • Reagan: Make the rich wealthier, destroy unions, kill the gays
  • Bush: Imperialism, making the rich wealthier and destroying unions
  • Clinton: Imperialism, increase corporate power under the guise of 'free trade', suppress the gays
  • Bush II: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, eliminate the right to privacy, militarize the cops
  • Obama: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, make health care more expensive, militarize the cops
  • Trump: Imperialism (though oddly less so), make the rich wealthier, militarize the cops
  • Biden: Imperialism, make the rich wealthier, militarize the cops, ignore food becoming cost-prohibitive
  • Trump II: Destroy everything, make the rich even wealthier, especially himself
[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

You're missing "brazen, bold-faced racketeering and sedition, stuff the judiciary" under trump 1. Also, saying that Obama's "goal" was to make healthcare more expensive smells like bullshit. Let's see some sources on that. Flawed and imperialistic though he may be, Obama put a good faith effort into taking the first step toward a socialized healthcare system, and was completely hamstrung by obstructionism. Finally, you need to put "subvert soviet imperialism, fuck over puerto rico, and engage in international scientific dick-sizing contests" under Kennedy. Other than that, and the fact that you skipped a few presidents in there (like "Carter: Try (and fail) to balance being a good human being with being the head of a jingoistic imperialist nation in the middle of a dick-sizing game of Connect4 where the countries of the world are the playing field and refusal to play could mean nuclear annihilation"), no further notes.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Oh, you're right. Let's fix that.

  • Carter: Imperialism, general failure.

I will give Carter this much, though. He definitely had the best post-presidency.

Also, no. For all his pretty speeches, Obama didn't make a good-faith effort to do anything except expand the war machine both internationally and domestically, make rich people wealthier, and expand the power of the presidency. (Hell, remember the 'Kill List'?)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago

And the Americans are dumb enough to fall for the red lies every time they run.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago

Nixon’s Southern Strategy

Winning elections for Republicans since 1968

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 19 hours ago

Maybe nobody actually gives a shit about "balanced budgets", imperialism in outer space, or sabotaged healthcare.

Whitey on the Moon

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago

Weird cuz a lot of things Clinton did seem to be more money for rich people too

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

That was always their secondary goal.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

Reducing the deficit by cutting things that benefit the working class coincides with money for rich people.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 125 points 1 day ago

This is not true. Trump's goal as president is to stay out of prison.

[-] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

That was goal 1, now goal 2 is excuting the biggest grifting world tour ever seen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 19 hours ago

That was his goal as a candidate. His goal now is to put everyone else in ~~prison~~ concentration camps.

[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Well there’s two rows missing. That would be Trump 2: get trumped

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, just skip over genocide joe. lmao.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 3 points 18 hours ago

Do you think this is the last 6 presidents?

[-] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 13 points 21 hours ago

But but Donny gonna send us $5k by Febru-sprin-summer!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] D8lineContentCre8or@lemm.ee 8 points 20 hours ago

Dems: More money for millionaires. Reps: More money for billionaires.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Theodore Roosevelt: Be a badass mother fucker

[-] tartarin@lemm.ee 7 points 20 hours ago

It's not about the party or the POTUS, it's all about the oligarchs who are funding the parties and really make things happen. All of them were in debt to oligarchs and had to return the given money for the campaigns somehow. Don't be fooled, as long as the funding of political parties isn't reformed to prevent these oligarchs to grab everything there will not be much for the rest of us. Just enough to avoid revolt and riots as long as sustainable. Democracy in the USA is a mascarade.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 23 hours ago

Arguably, all were successful except Obama.

[-] JakJak98@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago

It was too partisan I think. The ideals of universal Healthcare were not fully realized but definitely did expand Healthcare access, which isn't enough.

[-] PokerChips@programming.dev 14 points 21 hours ago

There were a couple corporate dems that ratfucked progress

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 2 points 17 hours ago

The dems could have kicked them off all committees, the president appoints the head of the IRS and the Attorney General, either of whom can fuck a politician up, or just removed the filibuster. Pelosi chose to let Liberman be the villain of the week. Same shit we saw under Biden where every week 1 dem or another or the parliamentarian or norms would stop the democrats from doing anything that might improve people's conditions (and get the dems reelected).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 68 points 1 day ago

Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)

Clinton eliminated the deficit.

Obama did not achieve universal health care.

[-] ModestMeme@lemm.ee 67 points 1 day ago

Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.

Sadly, even if Sanders were elected, it wouldn't have made universal healthcare a reality.

You need 218 progressives in the house and 50 progressives in the senate. So... not happening.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm pretty sure they all overwhelmingly achieved the same goal for the rich, it's really very dishonest not counting Clinton at least at around the same level as Reagan.

(Well, Kennedy had that car accident, so perhaps he didn't end his term fully.)

[-] CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Did bush actually have time for what's claimed here? He was mostly about removing rights from Americans in the face of a sham war. I don't think he actually had much focus on tax breaks for rich people...

Obama continued that ritual, removing even more rights from the American people under the guise of "safety". And Obama could have shoved Universal healthcare through but didn't - he watered it down in the name of "bipartisanship", but then ultimately nobody voted for the bill on the right anyways. If that were going to be the case, he should have just rammed through what the American people NEEDED; but he didn't -- because he wanted MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE (insurance companies)

Hell, Obama bombed more brown people than any president before him as well...let's not pretend he was an angel.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
1070 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

8074 readers
2753 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS