You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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)
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.
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.
This selfishness needs to be manipulated.
They’re only going to change if they are forced to.
I’m personally in favor of vigilante justice towards them and their families.
They need to fear their excessive wealth.
Holy shit is there no middle path between “accept oligarchy” and “French Revolution”? It’s the mid-21st century; surely we have figured out better solutions than this by now? The entire reason why one might think “bloody uprising” is the only solution - the fact that the masses are too apathetic and inattentive to come together over a more complicated message - is the exact reason why it’s also a terrible idea, as it lends itself to subversion by ideologue and perverted towards nefarious ends. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”, etc, and in the meantime the bloodthirsty mob slaughters not just the rich but then the usual scapegoat minority groups too, with the purges that follow such revolutions frequently turning anti-intellectual too. When you cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war, you have no control over what happens next nor any way to stop it until it’s run its full course.
The best way to defeat the enemies of the common folk, IMO, is the “greatest insult an enemy can suffer: to be ignored”. We should simply build the new system in defiance of the old system, or (when possible) subverting the old system to the new system’s needs. For example: we need to start more Community Land Trusts, where renting is not simply paying somebody else’s mortgage.
Systems in between are subject to manipulation via their vast wealth. The only way to diminish that is dissolution of superPACs and heavy regulation of all systems that allow cash to flow into politics.
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.
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.
Do you know why though?
Romneycare
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.
Missed a few.
Johnson: use war to win re-election
Nixon: fight hippies and commies
Ford: pardon Nixon
Carter: attain energy independence
Yeah let me ignore all the atrocities that blue presidents committed abroad, those don’t count since its brown people
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.
And I’m smart enough
Proceeds to justify how a “slow loss” is somehow a win.
You’re part of the problem, and these problems won’t get solved until you’re as insignificant as 3rd party voters.
Theodore Roosevelt: Be a badass mother fucker
Yeah, just skip over genocide joe. lmao.
Do you think this is the last 6 presidents?
fixed that for you
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.
honorable goals
“tHeY’rE tEh SaMe!!!”
More like “the lesser evil is still evil.”
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
Now that’s an infographic
Dems: More money for millionaires. Reps: More money for billionaires.
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.
Oops, all Heritage Foundation.
Weird cuz a lot of things Clinton did seem to be more money for rich people too
That was always their secondary goal.
Yes, it’s why the clintons win primaries over progressives.
Neo-liberals are the scum of the earth.
Reducing the deficit by cutting things that benefit the working class coincides with money for rich people.
The two party system is cooked.
Nothing will get better till the two party system is a thing of the past.
We don’t have a 2 party system.
In theory you don’t, in practice you do.
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.
Rich people are richer than ever though, so at least the red party delivered.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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…
Oh, I agree with you. However, I wasn’t going to assume that the person to whom I was replying would agree.
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
If you are an American, American economic imperialism is in your best interest.
“If you own a plantation, slavery is in your best interest.”
False equivalency.
For you to make the comment in this context, I think they are more equal than you are willing to admit.
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.
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’?)
But but Donny gonna send us $5k by Febru-sprin-summer!
Everyone will get their $5k in two weeks.
