These things are supposed to sound bad?
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
721 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
12404 readers
1471 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"Vote for me if your rent is higher than your landlord's mortgage"
or
"Vote for me if your home is owned by a bank or a landlord"
I don't see anything in that screenshot that indicates fox news as anti-angie. It's merely a bulleted list of her for-the-people platform.
Probably because the commentary behind the picture is "look at this socialist communism platform and look how terrible it is! We have wars to be fighting, not spending money on jobs!"
Seriously though how long after a rent freeze and moratorium on evictions do landlords decide renting isn't a great business and put the homes back on the market so the renters can buy?
I've been seeing landlords crying about tenant's rights in the local subreddits a lot more lately. Hopefully we're on the cusp of it.
I seriously doubt Sean Hannity( a major US landlord and Fox News freak) will ever cry about tenant's rights, except for the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, of course.
When I lived in San Francisco (near the Panhandle), there was an article written in which my landlord was complaining about his flats being rent and eviction controlled. The area was gentrifying, and he wanted to kick us out and get some Google employees in paying a few thousand a month.
Originally, the properties belonged to his father who recognized that there was a need for low-rent housing, especially so to preserve the character of the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, which had traditionally been a refuge for artists and hippies. In fact, one of the store fronts of the building was a dispensary during the Medical Marijuana ID Card program.
My flatmate and I considered writing a letter to the editor, referring to the article and thanking our landlord for letting us live there at pre-gentrification rates because we would never have been able to live in San Francisco otherwise. But the rag was definitely a landlord's rights periodical and it never would have been published.
Addendum: The flats were a bit of a dive, still having 1890s construction and 1970s electrical wiring. Since we were living there on the cheap, we learned to deal and didn't complain too much. I'm absolutely sure he was underestimating the cost of remodeling that would be necessary to make the flats appeal to well-paid tech developers.
Seriously though how long
as long as there is no better way to invest their money. once other investment tool become more attractive, they will start switching.
unfortunately houses and apartments hold value and resist inflation very well, because people simply have no choice, they do need to live somewhere. you can decide not to buy new phone, you can't decide not to have a roof above your head (technically you can, but the consequences are dire, so...)
So many homeless families now, living in broken down rvs at best. It's heartbreaking.
Right when we pull out the trusty old guillotine 👍🏻
The economy is so screwed that this is basically the only sensible way to invest for the middle class. There are no other good way to invest savings unless you are multimillionaire/billionaire.
I'm talking about mom and pop landlords that still go to their regular jobs and likely themselves live in an apartment, not about apartments owned by big corporations.
In the past one would use savings to open a business, now it is much more prohibitive and also much higher risk that one of the monopolies will drive you out of business.
Even with a rent freeze, renting is so exploitative it will continue to be a great business. If we want to be able to buy, we need to take systemic action. We need to exempt owner-occupants from property tax hikes, and then hike property taxes for non-occupant owners/landlord.
The property tax rate needs to target 85% owner-occupancy. Any year it is less than 80%, the non-occupant property tax rate statutorily increases by 5%. Any year owner-occupancy is over 90%, the non-occupant rate decreases by 5%.
The idea of rented housing needs to be killed off. There are much better ways to fulfill temporary and transient housing needs, or to leave maintenance responsibilities to someone else.
What do you do with the people that can afford a house but not the upkeep / maintenance?
Good question. That sounds like a perfect case for some variety of "condominium". The arrangement there is usually that the interior of the structure is owned by the occupant, while the exterior is shared in some way. Either the exterior is owned by the condo owner association (of which you are a member), or there is some sort of communal easement.
Alternatively, I've worked with independent property preservation and maintenance services that basically do the same thing that an apartment complex's maintenance staff would do. Without widespread renting, there would be a huge demand for such services directly from homeowners You'd basically pay a monthly fee, and they would handle everything. If they try to charge too much, you dump them and find someone else.
In either case, there are alternatives to paying exorbitant fees to a landlord. These are deeded properties; if you're making monthly payments, they are to a lender of your choice. You can refinance with another lender if you don't like the one you start with.
Depends, imo.
Are we factoring in the clownish refunds that are being prepped to go out to 'reimburse' landlords for the COVID pandemic moratoriums, which are both absolutely going to end up mostly in the pockets of corporate landlords and for which I also predict another batch of stupid application processes a la PPP processing style? And the precedent they would set?
Different answers between reality being allowed to unfurl as logic and nature dictates and the manufactured fuckery we get to experience.
Still using the wrong terminology and as long as we do, the problem will persist. The rich don't need to pay a fair share. The upper middle class needs to pay a fair share. The rich need to be taxed out of existence. They are dangerous to civil society. Numbers should be set, ie: no individual should have any business having more than 10 million in cash and 250 million in assets, or whatever. I understand this is an oversimplification that doesn't take into account business entities, etc - but it's not like smart people couldn't sit down and hash out what's appropriate. Ultimately, beyond the limits set, you either divest and/or turn the money back to your employees/shareholders - or you will give it to the government in the form of seizures and taxation.
Until such time as something like this is undertaken, we're just playing footsie with the problem.
no individual should have any business having more than 10 million in cash and 250 million in assets
If 'assets' includes publicly traded stocks then they're essentially the same as cash at those kind of numbers. You only need "immediate" cash for purchases under about $100k, anything bigger than that you can typically wait for the sell order to go through.
But overall that number looks about right; $350m is just about the ceiling where it's literally not possible to spend it all on things for yourself. It could buy you the most expensive house ever sold ($240m) plus the most expensive new car ($40m) plus the world's most expensive watch ($31m), and still leave you enough for a median-priced fully staffed private island ($10m), an 82' yacht ($7m), a small private jet ($12m), and you'd still be a deca-millionaire at the end of it.
Anyone spending more than that isn't spending it on things, they're spending it on power.
ie: no individual should have any business having more than 10 million in cash and 250 million in assets, or whatever.
Kim Stanley Robinson goes into a great deal of detail about this idea and other similar economic ideas in his Mars trilogy. For example for large projects where you would need a great deal of capital, companies(which are limited in size by law) would be allowed to form temporary cooperatives for the duration of the project(subject to approval and oversight, of course). It's definitely worth reading.
What we're all missing here is that the Fox viewer understands that these are good things. They're also indoctrinated to think about this in terms of a zero-sum game that ends with "undesirables will get a leg-up, which means less resources for me."
The Fox viewers are 100% correct. Undesirables are getting a leg-up thus resulting in less resources for them.
They are called billionaires.
Eh the musk has crossed over into too much money for a lot of the regular ones I know. They are stupid but a trillion dollars even gets to them a bit.
Ayyyye I just voted for her 🎉
Horror
I'm in a mostly red state, but live one of the two major blue cities the state that pretty much pays for the entire states bullshit.... they try so hard to push bullshit conservative amendments during election time. This go around, their ads were simply... "vote for this amendment that will do this, the socialists are trying to do this against you... are you with the socialists?" All while showing the typical fake ass middle class working family smiling and doing middle class things all bright and cheery when trying to push this obviously bad amendment. When talking about the socialists, they would cut to a black and white imagery of Mamdani, AOC, etc with evil looks on their face... I was astounded by the sheer misinformation and fear mongering tactics these dumb fuck R's are trying... luckily these amendments failed spectacularly at the ballots, but they say they aren't giving up...
The saddest part is this shit works on people
Somehow the word "socialist" has really bad branding.
in texas, the red WELFARE COUNTIES are sustained by 4 major blue counties. texas cant afford to make them all red with redistricitng. so many people in the HCOL of west coast moved there from a blue area.
They’re not out of touch. They’re propaganda for the owner class. “Keep ‘em fighting among themselves then they won’t come after us.”
Kinda insane somebody made this graphic and didn't notice himself that all of those things are positive lmao
I started reading the points without noticing that it was Fox news and I was thinking it was an amazing platform indeed
Yeah, most times, fox news screenshots read like evil capitalist propaganda. But this screenshot just reads like politically neutral information. Am I missing something?
its to scare CUBAN, venezuelan, and south american voters, and boomers, gen-xers as a boogyman.
whatever republicants don't want or are constantly raging about are probably some pretty good things for everyone.
also plus, unlike the other msms, fox is giving these people FREE press. any press is good press.
No no, you see they're only positive if white Christian nationalists get them. If those dirty brown people get them too, then it's bad. Brown people shouldn't be allowed to have good things.
!I'm putting in the /s because I'm sure someone will misread this!<
The strategy isn't to paint your opponent in a negative light. It's to be the first person to give any information about them, and then portray them in a negative light. Fox and conservative media ain't stupid. They know their loyal followers might talk to people outside the bubble. It is CRUCIAL that any possible talking point that could steer them away from conservative goals be brought up by conservative sources first, so that their followers have canned responses to everything rather than needing to think about a response.
If someone knee deep in conservative bullshit gets some time to think about their actual positions, they might consider leaving. So they guarantee they don't have time or space to have thoughts that weren't already give them.
Edit: This is why you'll see conservative groups seemingly fracture after any big, negative news. But then a few days later they're all shored up again, like there was never an issue. Had to wait for their talking points to come down in order to maintain group cohesion.
They can't be allowed to think so they're kept perpetually angry and irrational
trying to label it as a bad thing, like they did with Zohran, it only makes people like him, and nixon more likable.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I can't help but think there are people at Fox News who like these kinds of ideas, and while they know it's their job to make them look bad, they purposefully do it badly so that they end up looking good after all. Honestly no other explanation makes sense to me.
It's not Fox News that's out of touch, it's the people here being out of touch with how brainwashed their viewers are to see all of those things as evil and terrible after so many years of propaganda.
We look and see a list of great things we desperately want, they look and see Godzilla eating orphans as snacks.
Thing is, I've seen enough fox news myself. They don't usually put things like this. They prefer to hide it behind big scary "liberalism" or "socialism" (ooga booga!)
Kurt Vonnegut had a thing or two to say about secret saboteurs working for fascist propaganda machines.
I'm more freaked out about the centrist Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries who is misrepresenting DSA candidates saying they want to abolish the police and abolish the US Senate.
While these are far-reach goals of the DSA (similar ones include also abolishing prisons and abolishing the Electoral College), none of these things are on the actual platforms of any DSA candidate that is running.
I anticipate anyone still watching FOX News has been thoroughly indoctrinated (except for hatewatchers and media watchdogs, who don't actually regard FOX as a source), and they're going to vote for Republicans regardless.
News bits about Democratic candidates are part of their two minutes of hate programming and also paints targets for viewers who are radicalized and interested in doing violence for the MAGA cause.
If they really wanted to play dumb, they could link abolish ice with a pro-global warning campaign.