this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2026
1362 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

2669 readers
26 users here now

Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 147 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 80 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Let's not let Nixon off the hook here

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Nixon may have been a criminal and an asshole, but he actually had some positive accomplishments - for example, he vastly improved diplomatic relations with China, established the Environmental Protection Agency, and supported lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.

[Note: contrary to social media standards, acknowledging someone's legit accomplishments does not equal forgiving all their bad shit.]

[–] KingOfSleep@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

Trump makes Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You can draw a neo liberal shitstorm bumpy line from Regan to Trump.

Regan telling Iran not to release the hostages until after the ekection and if he won he'd sell then weapons (Iran-Contra) and he's elected twice.

Carter had bad ratings because he wasnt a typical US President, he actually gave a fuck about people and place. Welfare queens indeed ffs

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Ironically the welfare queen bullshit was based off one very specific person, a career conwoman who was suspected for murder at the time she was mentioned as a part of insurance fraud. The implications was that welfare fraud was severe and she was just the top most fraudster, meaning the scale went down from the 150K fraud she did with lesser amounts all the way down.

Truth is, there was just her. Welfare fraud was so rare and NEVER even CLOSE to her level that they were negligible. But it didn't matter to them. Also the actual proven amount of fraud was 4k to 8k at the most. A fraction of the amount the government claimed. This would have been closer to 20 to 40k in today's money. Not petty theft, but far from some grand world shattering scheme.

BTW the overt scrutiny of her welfare fraud was so severe that a major reason why many of the investigations regarding her role in that murder were dropped because it would take away media attention from her fraud and reveal just what a career criminal she was.

load more comments (1 replies)

Reagan was part of a concerted effort by the mega rich to destroy anti-corruption efforts and put power in the hands of a unitary executive more akin to a dictator. Oligarchs love strong centralized power because it’s easier to corrupt.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/master-plan/id1723377799

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (8 children)

I've always said it and I'll keep saying it because it is undeniably true.

Not a single one of America's enemies on the face of the Earth could harm Americans more than the Republican party does.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 43 points 6 days ago (32 children)

Yeah, solar panels are nice, but in spite of the different branding, "the path Carter set us on" was still neoliberalism. Carter was the beginning of the end of the unions and the postwar consensus around Keynesianism and progressive New Deal policies.

Carter was facing an economic problem known at the time as "stagflation," where things were getting more expensive while wages remained stagnant. Keynesianism called for the government spending more when wages are low in order to stimulate the economy, and spending less only under good conditions, to balance the budget and save for a rainy day. It failed to predict stagflation because stagflation was caused by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. But Carter chose to focus on inflation rather than stagnant wages, against the interests of unions and setting us on the path of neoliberalism.

The big difference between Carter and Reagan was that Reagan was much better at selling Americans on neoliberalism because he was willing to lie through his teeth about it. Carter's message was that neoliberalism would mean tough times and sacrifices, but that it's a chance to set aside crass materialism and focus on finding other forms of fulfillment, because what really matters is being a good person on an individual level. Reagan's message was fuck all that, think of all the cheap plastic shit you'll be able to buy, plus unions are commie shit anyway, and all that social responsibility crap is just helping black people and gays so fuck it and fuck them. But it was the same economic policy of neoliberalism under both. Americans preferred Reagan's messaging so much that he got literally 10x the electoral votes as Carter in 1980.

The reason why we're here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it'll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes. But the solution is not to somehow convince people to vote for the more honest neoliberal, it's to provide an alternative to neoliberalism altogether.

[–] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago (127 children)

Yet another revisionist wanting to blame Carter for the actions of the oil industry driving world policy. Carter was not the most brilliant but he did try to do the right thing. He was trying to show the world they didn’t need to be under the complete stranglehold of the oil barrons.

Iran was a fucking mess. But it wasn’t his “fault.” He made mistakes but he didn’t betray his country to get elected.

Reagan was a traitor and should have gone to prison for what he did with Iran.

But you keep talking about how everything would be the same if we had kept Carter’s policies.

I am sure you also think the same with Harris. I am sure we would be talking about how she “should have attacked Iran and that Iran wouldn’t be crazy enough to close the strait of Hormuz.” Or “her targeted air strikes would never have happened with Trump.”

We don’t know for sure what would have happened but the character of a person is enough to at least determine their intentions even if they make mistakes. There are mistakes and there are MISTAKES.

load more comments (127 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (3 children)

he's literally the problem almost every single time there's a long standing problem. most of it traces ban to Ronny which is amazing considering he may have been brain dead the entire time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 38 points 6 days ago (8 children)

They were water heating panels. Not photovoltaic. They did not produce electricity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_at_the_White_House

[–] badcommandorfilename@lemmy.world 126 points 6 days ago

Yes, that was the technology at the time. By creating a wedge issue like "solar panels are unsightly" or "wind farms kill birds", politicians undermine good science and good economic ideas to please their donors.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 80 points 6 days ago

every joules the heating panels used to heat water is 1 joules not needed to be burned with fossil fuels.

[–] NochMehrG@feddit.org 38 points 6 days ago

Thanks for the details. Still good and saving fossil fuels.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 6 days ago

PV wasn’t economically feasible at smaller scale until relatively recently, but that doesn’t mean that preheating water for heating or domestic hot water is a waste of time. It can save considerable costs and fossil fuel consumption.

[–] AmyAye@nord.pub 24 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Yes but it was still a step in the right direction that could have led to more steps. Who is to say even Bush wouldn't have looked at those every day before deciding "let's do the new electric ones" or whatever.

I swear some people are just "100% perfect progress NOW or NOTHING, ITS SHIT WHY THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL TERRIBLE.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 20 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Conservatives are PURE EVIL. Every single one of them. They've fought against every civil right advancement in history. Under Reagan, they publicly celebrated the deaths of countless victims of AIDS and did everything in their power to maximise the number of victims. They attacked every researcher who tried to help.

Conservatives consider anyone who can experience empathy to be their enemy. They call empathy "woke" and want it to die. As long as they continue to live, conservatives will never stop oppressing and killing the normal people. They can't. Because they are truly, deeply evil.

Every war and every genocide in human history has been caused by conservatives exclusively. Nothing good has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.

Conservatives are the very definition of evil and must be completely redacted if we are to ever know peace.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SwissArmyKazoo@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago

Conservatism should be considered a intensive hate crime against humanity.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's so crazy to blame Reagan, while ignoring the vast industry that had already consumed the political infrastructure of dozens of states.

Carter was as much a creature of the O&G industry, when he supported our fascist allies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, plus the industry at home.

Nixon was even worse.

But this goes so far beyond who was president at any given moment. Like, if you're going to blame anybody, blame the folks who figured out Plastics. After the 1980s, plastic exploded the demand for petroleum.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 30 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

I dunno, America problems and corruptions were there on day one, your founding fathers were total monsters.

Dont think Carter's policies could have changed your course that much.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 50 points 6 days ago (7 children)

The US founding fathers were less monstrous than most other rulers of the time. You have to give credit where credit is due. And yes, both Carter and Gore could have set the country on a fundamentally different course. That certainly wouldn't have solved every problem, but shit would be a lot less fucked than it is today.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 33 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No matter WHERE you are the US using less fossil fuels would've meant less climate change which means fewer disasters and climate issues everywhere, to say nothing for how it would've sped development of renewables more generally and had a knock-on effect worldwide.

America is undeniably a corrupt shithole - but virtue signaling against good policy to get a cheap punch in is childish and imbecilic.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 22 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

I've been saying the exact same thing for decades. Imagine where we'd be today if we had embraced solar and wind 50 years ago?

It's all about boiling water anyway. Who cares how we boil it? Shouldn't we boil it the cheapest, easiest way possible? The sun's beating down, the wind is blowing, it's easier to harvest that, than drilling holes a mile into the Earth.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›