this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
1023 points (95.1% liked)

Political Memes

8074 readers
3203 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Missed a few.

Johnson: use war to win re-election

Nixon: fight hippies and commies

Ford: pardon Nixon

Carter: attain energy independence

[–] ianfraserkrillmaster@midwest.social 26 points 10 hours ago (3 children)
[–] ArtemisimetrA@lemm.ee 11 points 10 hours ago

Now that's an infographic

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 51 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 27 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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 16 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

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 11 hours ago (1 children)

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 10 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...

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 9 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)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 23 points 11 hours ago

Oops, all Heritage Foundation.

[–] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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 10 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.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

That was always their secondary goal.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

Theodore Roosevelt: Be a badass mother fucker

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 3 points 9 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.

[–] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 11 hours ago

Everyone will get their $5k in two weeks.

[–] D8lineContentCre8or@lemm.ee 6 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] tartarin@lemm.ee 6 points 11 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.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 49 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago

Nixon’s Southern Strategy

Winning elections for Republicans since 1968

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 hours ago

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

Whitey on the Moon

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 120 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 hours ago

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

[–] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Arguably, all were successful except Obama.

[–] JakJak98@lemmy.world 14 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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 12 hours ago

There were a couple corporate dems that ratfucked progress

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crawancon@lemm.ee 131 points 22 hours ago (11 children)

they all got more money for rich people. did any of them impose term limits, stop insider training, or impose any meaningful penalties for those that already have a lot of wealth? they got wealthier and so did all around.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 26 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

They literally didn't, though. Clinton obtained surplus by raising taxes and by removing several caps which benefitted the wealthy.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 21 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

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

President Clinton oversaw a healthy economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998 to 2001

raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[5] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.

The 28% rate for capital gains was lowered to 20%. The 15% rate was lowered to 10%. In 1980, a tax credit was put into place based on the number of individuals under the age of 17 in a household. In 1998, it was $400 per child and in 1999, it was raised to $500. This Act removed from taxation profits on the sale of a house of up to $500,000 for individuals who are married, and $250,000 for single individuals. Educational savings and retirement funds were given tax relief. Some of the expiring tax provisions were extended for selected businesses.

Clinton signed the bipartisan Financial Services Modernization Act or GLBA in 1999.[41] It allowed banks, insurance companies and investment houses to merge and thus repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had been in place since 1932. It also prevented further regulation of risky financial derivatives. His deregulation of finance (both tacit and overt through GLBA) was criticized as a contributing factor to the Great Recession.[citation needed] While he disputes that claim, he expressed regret and conceded that in hindsight he would have vetoed the bill, mainly because it excluded risky financial derivatives from regulation, not because it removed the long-standing Glass-Steagall barrier between investment and depository banking. In his view, even if he had vetoed the bill, the Congress would have overridden the veto, as it had nearly unanimous support.[2]

What Clinton did was disadvantage income against capital gains further, thus preventing more people from the middle class and upper middle class to become rich through work, while making it easier for rich people to become even richer. Add to that the deregulation of banks so more "too big to fail" casino players could play in a more deregulated casino which then needed to be bailed out a few years later. By slashing and taxing social security benefits he also made it so that less people could lift themselves out of poverty, which would not only lead to more poverty but also increase spending long term as people kept relying on insufficient benefits instead of getting the means to gain self sustainability and subsequently contribute more to taxes than they needed in temporary aid.

tldr: Clinton fucked the poor and middle class and benefited the rich. He just was more clever about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 20 points 15 hours ago

And cutting the social safety net.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›