This is not true. Trump's goal as president is to stay out of prison.
Well there’s two rows missing. That would be Trump 2: get trumped
That was goal 1, now goal 2 is excuting the biggest grifting world tour ever seen.
I'd've rather that it'd never come but, at a certain point, it reaches a point where it is mesmerizing, in its scope and scale.
That was his goal as a candidate. His goal now is to put everyone else in
prisonconcentration camps.Imagine how much he would snitch. He'll never be allowed to cop a deal or go to prison.
Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)
Clinton eliminated the deficit.
Obama did not achieve universal health care.
Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.
Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)
I think just a few parts of his skull made it to the moon.
fixed that for you
Now that's an infographic
"tHeY'rE tEh SaMe!!!!"
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
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
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.
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
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.
And the Americans are dumb enough to fall for the red lies every time they run.
Nixon’s Southern Strategy
Winning elections for Republicans since 1968
Maybe nobody actually gives a shit about "balanced budgets", imperialism in outer space, or sabotaged healthcare.
The two party system is cooked.
Nothing will get better till the two party system is a thing of the past.
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.
Oops, all Heritage Foundation.
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.
Okay you're trying to make some good points but, maybe stop and rephrase that as a coherent thought?
yeah #anybytes, try synthesizing your point.
Disagree. There were lots of good points in that rambly mess.
Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for blueberry muffins in iambic pentameter.
LLMs write better than that.
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.
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).
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.)
Missed a few.
Johnson: use war to win re-election
Nixon: fight hippies and commies
Ford: pardon Nixon
Carter: attain energy independence
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
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'?)
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.
Weird cuz a lot of things Clinton did seem to be more money for rich people too
That was always their secondary goal.
Reducing the deficit by cutting things that benefit the working class coincides with money for rich people.
But but Donny gonna send us $5k by Febru-sprin-summer!
Everyone will get their $5k in two weeks.
Missing a Bush before Clinton. HW before W.
And Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson between JFK and Reagan.
Dems: More money for millionaires. Reps: More money for billionaires.
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.
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.
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.
Romneycare
Yeah, just skip over genocide joe. lmao.
Do you think this is the last 6 presidents?
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.
Theodore Roosevelt: Be a badass mother fucker
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.
Edit- thinking deeper. The problem is also that they’re not taking things seriously. They believe it’ll work out… by itself… in a little while. That’s not how problem solving works. This is how we got to the situation we are in today.
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.
Hey that's not fair, he also campaigned on explicitly hurting a bunch of vulnerable people!
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.
And ofc... Where's genocide joe?!?
