this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
1127 points (94.7% liked)

Political Memes

8081 readers
3038 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
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

From the perspective of those who have a lot of money, what’s the problem with that? My wealthy friends always vote r because they want to pay less taxes. Thats their only motive. This selfishness needs to be manipulated.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

My family is decently wealthy but comes from a pretty impoverished background (They moved to Canada from Sri Lanka during the civil war)

They're pretty centreist. Although in the last elections elections they voted Green (Provincial and Federal)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

To compare - many of my friends are immigrants too (from the former Soviet Union) and grew up poor in the states. And they don’t understand why others who had more opportunities than them weren’t able to “make it”. They view being poor a choice and they don’t want to subsidize people who made the “wrong” choice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

I think my parents Buddhist upbringing has a lot to do with their beliefs. They always want to do good when they can. Respecting other cultures and identities etc.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

I like former President Obama, but his ACA was half baked. It is not even close to the healthcare system in Germany and other EU members.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 hours ago

Blame Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Yes, it was half-baked, but it was also almost defeated, and later almost repealed. The alternative of "nothing" is so much worse.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago

The ACA was essentially the republican compromise that was offered to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. He rejected it and was unable to get any meaningful change.

It shows how much we have moved to the right that the republican plan from 10 years earlier was barely able to be passed by Democrats.

I'll also point out that Clinton's big goal for his time in offices was universal health care not balancing the budget. He completely failed on that but did briefly balance the budget.

Still better than the republican goals.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

Do you know why though?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 day ago (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

Much better graphic. Maybe shit head will change the us for the better in the long run. The only way the us can move forward is when the r’s start experiencing the consequences of their own actions.. and it’s slowly happening.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago

honorable goals

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

Now that's an infographic

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day 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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (3 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.”

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day 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...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Missed a few.

Johnson: use war to win re-election

Nixon: fight hippies and commies

Ford: pardon Nixon

Carter: attain energy independence

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 day ago

Oops, all Heritage Foundation.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The two party system is cooked.

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

We don't have a 2 party system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

In theory you don't, in practice you do.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 130 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 day 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 (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago

Nixon’s Southern Strategy

Winning elections for Republicans since 1968

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 143 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago

And cutting the social safety net.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›