this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
645 points (98.9% liked)

Political Humor

1936 readers
607 users here now

Welcome to Political Humor!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org 113 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 99 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If Americans could sense a pattern we wouldn't be in this mess.

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 16 points 3 days ago

Yeah, nobody else has that problem. Look at Germany! They got rid of facism and are not looking back.

Right?

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You assume they don't like the pattern.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True. People are the worst.

heh democracy go boom

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago

The US be like

[–] MissGoldenSocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 3 days ago (6 children)

No, it's the Dems. Let me present you with a whole chart, manifesto and a dozen podcasts pulled fresh out of my ass.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Both Democrats and Republicans serve capitalism, run by oligarchic pedophilic billionaires. We all need to go farther left than our corrupt two-party system.

I'm for Social Democracy.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

It's not a binary. The establishment democrats have allowed and supported this as long as I've been alive. Dems have had every opportunity to use overwhelming majorities of political power to secure the future, to safeguard rights, to pack the courts or create term limits, to enshrine voting rights and equal rights in unbreakable policy.

Instead we have had decades of Chuck Schumer "writing very stern letters" in opposition to the worst crimes our species has taken part in.

If they're both taking donations from the same people, is it really about sides?

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but when one side is blatantly bad you should completely vote to other option, then that side will either vanish and new party will appear, or they'll course correct and put someone better. If they always get half the vote whatever they do, then you don't get a change.

If you call it unrealistic, look at Nepal's election results this week (look into what led into the election too if you want more info).

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I am all for voting for the lesser of evils when it's our only choice, but in the US right now we have an evil group supporting a more evil group. Our answer is to make sure we actually get politically active and engaged, we've seen a lot of positive outcomes recently with actual progressive representatives getting seated into positions of power and all it took was actual work on the ground and volunteering and supporting the right people by being informed.

Most of the horrors we're dealing with now are a direct result of not enough involvement in both local/state elections as well as midterms over the last couple decades, many of the worst members of house ran without opposition. I'm not saying "both sides are bad, don't vote" I'm saying we need to flush out ALL the bad, whatever color they have. And we can do it. Despite the doomerism that is rampant right now.

I am very familiar with Nepal and wouldn't say there's enough parallels to the US to really make strong comparisons beyond the broadest concepts like radical reform led by a younger and more connected generation, that IS something we can do here at least.

[–] CovertGogurt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

No, it's people who don't vote or won't vote for the lesser or 2 evils that are part of the problem. Change is incremental and people rather not vote if they can't get what they want immediately. My hair stylist still hasn't registered to vote and she's 30yo.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm guessing you do not know the election thing I'm talking about, in Nepal the new election results (after the protest) basically gave >60% seats to a completely new party, while old powerful parties now have barely any representation, and it's not even a two party system. If it was two party system the new one would have gotten almost 80-90%.

So if something similar happened here, given people believe "both evil", third party would get overwhelming votes, if not at least the "more evil" would barely get any votes. The excuse of "we only have less evil to choose from" does not work if majority of the people still voted the "more evil", why would a party change if they keep getting votes based on what they are doing.

Edit: To add to this, even the registered and active members of the old parties voted for the new one. They even took campaign money to campaign for old parties, went to the people and told them to vote for the new party lol.

This kinda of results comes from not having your whole identity about a political party, which I don't see it here, and the strong individualism, where people say "well he gave us money last time, I'll vote him"

[–] MissGoldenSocks@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Oh no, don't get wrong. Dems are only ever slightly better but I'd vote for Bernie if they, you know, did the whole actually-caring-about-~~voters~~-humans thing.

ooo, i love ass manifestos

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Tell me Chuck didn’t pop Champagne a few weeks ago.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

it's both of them, despite what the cultist fanboys of one side have to say.
They either start/prepare the war or continue it.
Endless wars, suppport for the genocider state, multinationals, billionaires are bipartisan.
And if they can't see that, which they obviously can't (42/2 upvote ratio) , they deserve what they get.

bunch of suckers.
hope your dumb violent shithole destroys itself ASAP

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Yeah but the one before bush was good right?

Tap for spoilerIt was Reagan

[–] NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

Wow that’s relatively benevolent compared to the scale of the crimes of later Republican presidents. Nixon really was the least evil republican president of the last 60 years.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"He's dead and his bullshit is still trickling down my face"

See, it works.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The one before Bush was H. W. Bush, unless we're just counting both Bushes as a single amalgamation of evil.

Edit: ignore me, I'm just dumb.

[–] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

HW is already in the pic though that’s who they were referring to by just saying bush.

[–] zikzak025@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah you're right, I'm just a dumbass. I'd like to say that it was just cropped in my app, but I'm almost positive I saw it and then the image was just completely wiped out of my mind as soon as I started reading the comments.

[–] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago

We all make mistakes. No judgment.

[–] Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But all the right wingers keep saying the economy is going great!

I dunno where they get that info but they sure keep saying it!

Good economy means prices go through the roof, right?

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago

I mean, yeah, it means people are spending more money instead of hoarding it in, say, retirement funds, emergency savings, for a down payment, for some long-term dream... They can save up while we can pin it on the other guys, then we drain it all and call that economy!

What do you mean, that's not how it works? Line go up!

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Are you suggesting Donald is related to the Bush family?

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

He's a secret bush baby

[–] NichEherVielleicht@feddit.org 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Wouldn't wonder about a family circle...

[–] LostWanderer@fedia.io 17 points 3 days ago

ROFL There is a pattern, that Republican leadership is often flawed, their short term solutions will enrich their donors...Only for so long before it causes long term damage for everyone else.

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but what about that tan suit tho? I mean...

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No no itt was all Biden’s fault!

HiLlArY iS gEnOciDe!

Democrats are the Republicans!!!

[–] Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you don't think the democrats are coconspirators at this point in history with all the data available to you, I give up on you.

[–] CovertGogurt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

If We OnLy hAD BeRniE!

[–] hardcoreufo@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Missing Regean. Sure he didn't crash the economy during his presidency directly, but he set it up to fail in the future.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

How about ol' Reagan?

[–] WorldieBoi@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

fine by me if it means the death of chat gpt and high ram prices

[–] BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

It won't. Just look at what the 2008 crisis did. It will just mean that you loose and the gain more.