this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
1149 points (94.8% liked)

Political Memes

8378 readers
2680 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

Now that's an infographic

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 weeks ago

Oops, all Heritage Foundation.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The two party system is cooked.

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks 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] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks 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] 17 points 3 weeks 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.”

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, I agree with you. However, I wasn't going to assume that the person to whom I was replying would agree.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Everyone will get their $5k in two weeks.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Arguably, all were successful except Obama.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

"Successful"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There were a couple corporate dems that ratfucked progress

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