• crawancon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    148
    ·
    13 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      13 days ago

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

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Nope, they all deregulated, supported monopolies & tax loopholes.

      … all while the core infrastructure (healthcare, transit systems, tax systems, education, housing, etc) withered away by design.

      Not to mention the massive bail-outs via blank no-strings attached checks (if a gov has to give monies to a private company that usually means shareholders lose their value, but not in the USA, they just get free monies).

      And ofc war profiteering (& constantly killing some of the poorest civilians on the planet).

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      What about Sanders? How about Warren?

      We need congressional primary attendance to break 15% before we get to complain about term limits. If you don’t show up when you have a say, then you are responsible for the career politicians.

      We should be voting twice every two years, not once every four, for federal elections alone.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 days ago

          You asked about creating term limits. There are limits on presidential terms, so I assumed you meant congressional term limits. No? Am I missing your point?

          • crawancon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            the OP posted Pic about presidents. my comment was did any of those presidents introduce term limits on congress or SCOTUS, etc.

            I’d have loved Warren or Sanders, but neither were president.

              • crawancon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                13 days ago

                I’m sure an executive order or thirty would have sufficed in leau of proper legislation.

                see: current administration

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  Executive orders can just be repealed by the next administration. The most it could possibly affect is one House term.

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        I hope you’re aware that Sanders was never president. But also that he’s not a democra, which folks sometimes forget.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          They’re asking about enacting term limits. There is a presidential term limit, so I assumed they were talking about Congress.

    • ModestMeme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      13 days ago

      Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.

      • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        13 days ago

        Sadly, even if Sanders were elected, it wouldn’t have made universal healthcare a reality.

        You need 218 progressives in the house and 50 progressives in the senate. So… not happening.

        • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          13 days ago

          Progressives would need to down ballot vote for that to happen. Would also need to support and fund progressive candidates.

          Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            13 days ago

            Progressives currently can’t even do the bare minimum (actually voting), in large enough numbers to matter.

            Of course not!

            They’re doing something far more critical and effective!

            They’re withholding votes based on purity testing and otherwise being manipulated into nullifying themselves by online manipulation by the right.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 days ago

          Technically you need 51 or 50 + VP tiebreaker unless a Republican filibusters then you need 60.

          You can change senate rules if you have a comfortable majority but I’m pretty sure they can filibuster that, too, and it might backfire like removing the filibuster for SCOTUS and cabinet picks has.

          • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            13 days ago

            You can’t filibuster a rule change.

            Its literally been done before.

            First, filibuster was removed for normal court appointments during Obama Admin

            Then filibuster was removed for supreme court appointments during the first trump admin.

            Neither could be filibustered (otherwise the rules wouldn’t been changed, and we don’t have 3 trump appointees in SCOTUS)

        • That Weird Vegan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 days ago

          The funny thing is, americans already kinda have universal healthcare… just with a middleman. Where do they think those insurance premiums are going?

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 days ago

          Executive order deporting anyone in senate not voting for his agenda?

          /s (but only for a few months, then headlines will explain how it’s apparently a real option)

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 days ago

          Yes and, they also needed to break a filibuster by the Republicans, which took 60 votes in the Senate, despite severe illness and Republican shenanigans. It was a huge lift to get what we got.

      • Michael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        He never seriously fought for universal healthcare. He stopped advocating for it before he even started fighting. As soon as he got a “reality check”, not a word of support for universal healthcare was ever uttered by him to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, though.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      13 days ago

      He did give free or extremely cheap healthcare to tens of millions of americans and brought down proces nationwide by creating competition.

      And if not for independent Joe Leiberman being the holdout for the 60 it took to pass any form of the bill he would have accomplished more.

    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      13 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        13 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          13 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            13 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 days 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.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days 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.

      • Overkrill@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        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

    • aceshigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days 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.

  • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Did bush actually have time for what’s claimed here? He was mostly about removing rights from Americans in the face of a sham war. I don’t think he actually had much focus on tax breaks for rich people…

    Obama continued that ritual, removing even more rights from the American people under the guise of “safety”. And Obama could have shoved Universal healthcare through but didn’t - he watered it down in the name of “bipartisanship”, but then ultimately nobody voted for the bill on the right anyways. If that were going to be the case, he should have just rammed through what the American people NEEDED; but he didn’t – because he wanted MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE (insurance companies)

    Hell, Obama bombed more brown people than any president before him as well…let’s not pretend he was an angel.

    • Tower@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      13 days ago

      The ACA wasn’t “watered down in the name of bipartisanship”. The public option was removed because that’s the only way Joe Lieberman, the 60th vote in the Senate, would vote for it. And yes, what initially came out of committee was not as progressive as we wanted, but if Lieberman wasn’t even going to vote for that, there was no way he was going to vote for M4A.

      • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        13 days ago

        I wish he just pushed to end the filibuster.

        Then, all he would’ve needed was 50 senators, he can sacrifice 10 of those 60 votes in exchange for a better healthcare system.

      • kbotc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        13 days ago

        Nah, the crash was well underway by the time Obama took office. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailouts) was Bush Jr’s for example and Obama’s first action was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (The stimulus packages)

      • Boeman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        13 days ago

        No, Obama wasn’t in office. The election was in 2008, jr. was the president the entire year.

      • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        13 days ago

        Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

        He had nothing to do with the great recession that started in December 2007.

        Dumbass.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        https://www.cbpp.org/research/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts

        High-income taxpayers benefitted most from these tax cuts, with the top 1 percent of households receiving an average tax cut of over $570,000 between 2004-2012 (increasing their after-tax income by more than 5 percent each year). Despite promises from proponents of the tax cuts, evidence suggests that they did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.

        Edit to add the chart - while technically the lowest fifth of earners saw a 1% cut in their taxes, the highest 1% saw a 6.7% cut.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Kennedy got to the moon by giving some Nazis a free pass for heavy participation in the Holocaust.

    Clinton got to the White House by pushing for and signing the death warrant for a man who was executed with a mental age of 9 as a campaign stunt. Also a serial molester.

    Obama became Pakistan’s No.1 Wedding crasher, had a personal kill list, reneged on his promise to close the US concentration camp in Cuba and bugged Merkel’s phone.

    If these are the best examples someone can come up with, it rather illustrates how we got to this point. Those were the “good” ones.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      13 days ago

      Kennedy got to the moon by giving some Nazis a free pass for heavy participation in the Holocaust.

      Okay, so… you have scientists that know how to solve life-saving problems, but they used to work for the bad guys.

      Do you execute them and society continues suffering.

      Or do you offer them a chance at redemption.

      Don’t get me wrong, as hate nazis as much as everyone else. But I’m also a believer in restorative justice. Using their knowledge for the benefit of humankind is much more useful than just shooting them.

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 days ago

      Kennedy got to the moon by giving some Nazis a free pass for heavy participation in the Holocaust.

      This is a bit of a stretch. Von Braun and co already got their free pass long before Kennedy became president.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        I think it was meant to be aspirational. Like he would have to earn it. Obviously it didn’t work.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Operation Paperclip was 1945

      Kennedy assumed office in 1961.

      If Clinton was willing to raise the taxes on the highest earners by 7% a few more times I’d let him fuck me in the ass and watch him fuck your wife, too.

  • andybytes@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I love how short-sighted this is. Like, I think there are more people that are on a higher level of understanding nowadays, but still the old game still remains. America is an imperialist empire and fascist are the useful idiots of empire. Neoliberalism is a right-wing ideology. Do you think a million dollars is a lot of money? Well I can tell you a billionaire uses that to wipe his ass. So when he donates it to charity, he’s just trying to manage perception. So what I’m trying to say is that the Democrats are neoliberal and they are fascist and both the Democrats and the Republicans work together to keep the working class down. That’s why we live the way we do today because things only continue to get worse. The rest of the world sees us as a right-wing country. The Democrats are controlled opposition. The bourgeois elections mean nothing to me or anybody with a fucking clue. The Democrats supported genocide in Gaza. Bernie Sanders and AOC are sheep dogs. They are not socialist, but they are there to defame socialist ideas. You can look this up online. It’s called the ratchet effect. So no, this is a little too simple for me. This is like baby boo boo diaper information. It’s a very immature analysis of the current state of things or what has happened in the past. End Wokeism no War but the Class War.

      • thefartographer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 days ago

        You take some flour, and some room temp eggs
        Room temperature butter is the best
        And some warm milk, you stage it with the rest
        Vanilla, sugar, and baking soda
        If you forget your berries, you are fucked
        Iambic pentameter is shit. Salt.

        Get all of these items into a big bowl
        Mix it or whatever, I am not your boss
        Batter should be consistency of sludge

        Heat your oven to the maximum temp
        Pour your batter directly in oven
        Leave your house, tell neighbors you broke your toe
        Return to home, act surprised it is ash
        Get insurance check, use to buy muffins

        Prep time: 30-45 minutes
        Cook time: 2 months if insurance is fast

        Sure, I did a bad job. But in my defense, I put more effort into this than I should have and wasted everyone’s time. Especially mine.

        • Deceptichum
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 days ago

          This is not a recipe.

          Recipes come with a 3 paragraph life story at the start.

          • thefartographer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            Forsaken by my parents, I must bake
            A pie, a biscuit, or even a cake
            My parents, so proud, say that they love it
            I, too, am fulfilled cuz in them, I shit

            If nutty, to them, I serve up a pie
            Or a dish more savory, if corn supplied
            Since I was a child, I have done this
            I am better at it than at rhyming

            If you want a nice treat, leave out the poo
            Or keep it in, really, it’s up to you
            As you make what I bake, something might stink
            Solutions are found in my sponsored links

            Now I will let you get to the big bake
            More words are needed for profits at stake
            Please take care and enjoy my recipe
            Return next week when I make drinks from pee

    • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 days ago

      as others have said, try synthesizing your ideas. You have a good core argument, but its a little rambly, with some things that feel more buzz word then argument.

      Try leading with your thesis, in this case “The democrats are controlled opposition that work with the Republicans to keep the working class down” and then follow up with your supporting comments and evidence. Alot of people wont read everything and just by the first half will judge what you say.

    • Michael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      Here’s some unsolicited advice: you’d probably get your point across better if you found a way of expressing yourself with less perceived hate, less name-calling, and less labeling - don’t dilute your passion, but speak to the reality and to the solutions that aren’t being put on the table. Speak to people’s silent struggle and find a way to not be polarizing.

      Instead of calling out the US as being imperialistic, shed light to the real effects of US imperialism (e.g. US reliance on supply chains that revolve around slavery or child slavery, third-world exploitation, effects of US regime change etc.) and complicity on both sides.

      Instead of calling Democrats fascists, explain that they don’t have any power or energy to fight fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, imperialism (effectively making them complicit). They have no plan and no solutions.

      Instead of calling elections bourgeois, explain that political teams and this tug of war game is a pointless exercise and gets literally nothing done — e.g. speak to election/voting reform, the dissolution of team politics and political parties that take money from non-small donors, term limits, and speak to concepts like direct democracy. Bernie Sanders and AOC aren’t socialist or anything close to it in practice, but they also aren’t necessarily operating in complete bad faith.

      I don’t disagree with your general sentiment, but your points can be more eloquently expressed. Reduce the terminology, Democrats are powerless even if they shift their tune, they are always going to answer to capital, they aren’t interested in addressing critical problems (e.g. modern slavery, the fresh water crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, the economy, deregulation of corporations etc.), and they aren’t interested in solutions. They have no power, even when they have had power (e.g. under Obama).

    • gradual@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Globally speaking, $1 million is still a lot of money.

      You can live comfortably for the rest of your life while raising a family off of $1 million.

      It’s more money than the vast majority of people will accumulate throughout their entire lives.

      Anyone who has a million dollars in wealth does not need more.

      We still should be taking from the billionaires and redistributing their wealth to those who need it.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    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
    • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      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.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        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’?)

  • ZMoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Missed a few.

    Johnson: use war to win re-election

    Nixon: fight hippies and commies

    Ford: pardon Nixon

    Carter: attain energy independence

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I’m pretty sure they all overwhelmingly achieved the same goal for the rich, it’s really very dishonest not counting Clinton at least at around the same level as Reagan.

    (Well, Kennedy had that car accident, so perhaps he didn’t end his term fully.)

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Reagan dropped the highest individual rate from 50% to 28%

      Clinton raised it to 35%, increased tax on gasoline and removed a lot of upper limits.

      It’s the fakest shit to say they’re all on the same team.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          A good chunk of that “fix” caused the hellscape we’re in today. He renewed the corn subsidies that encouraged overfarming, making high-fructose corn syrup less expensive than sugar. He also beefed up our trade and foreign investment relations with China which made it less expensive to manufacture overseas than domestically.

          • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 days ago

            Corn syrup was cheaper than sugar well before Clinton. One of the main reasons for the “new coke” debacle in '85 was the switch from sugar to corn syrup.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days ago

              Right. That was due to corn subsidies encouraging overproduction. Those expired under Clinton. We knew it was a problem, but he put the economy before our national health and renewed the subsidies.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    13 days ago

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

    • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 days 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.

      • gradual@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        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.