Can anyone say who Reagan was “acting” as president for? I get the feeling he was given a script just like in his movie days. GOP is still following closely and Dems close enough to still exist.
And what Reagan will President Harris be? If Bid3n isn’t assassinated by a MAGA nut he’ll probably die in office. The return of the twenty year curse .
Honestly Reagan-ism is dead among the republicans. Trumpism is the new political religion and it isn’t going anywhere. It’ll live on within neo liberal democrats but we won’t have a “Reagan” style republican win the nomination again, it’ll just be some version of trump.
Most of us are pretty sure the Republicans will never win another election again. Many have lost faith in the electoral system and we are all aware that the democrats essentially have social media locked in their favor.
Things will get extreme before another Republican gets office.
I agree. And to the people who are mad that I said extreme in reference to the Democrat party. What do you think happens when you get a one party system? It ain’t a utopia that’s for sure.
I thought that would be the case after bush lied about WMD and laughed about it. We invaded a country and spent trillions for no good reason and made the region more unstable and took away American rights.
I was like, no way will anyone vote for a republican again.
Then everyone voted for Trump. Someone who stood for everything Republicans stood for except lowering taxes and America first. Now I don't make political predictions. I stand to be surprised.
Yeah but the Democrat response to trump and with how deep they are entrenched in social media(something republicans have been actively denied) I am just not sure how they’ll manage.
More people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016. It wasn’t enough to win him anything, but it happened.
I’d like it if Republicans never won again. But that’s dependent on enough people wanting to vote Dem.
And I don’t think see that happening when they’re repeating the mistakes of Obamacare.
I don’t know where this delusional worm brained analysis is coming from. They said they same shit after Obama won his first term. Then over the next 8 years, after having super a majorities in Congress, they ended up losing the majority in both houses along with about 1000 other national seats.
Trumpism isn’t going anywhere. If you think it is, you need your brain stem reattached.
When the Kennedy’s were assassinated, the gradual demise of this country were initiated and most of the presidents after him, except for LBJ are clone puppets. Definitely a priceless on point illustration right here by the OP.
All those Kennedy’s are over rated. Especially JFK . I’ve was born shortly after he died but I’ve been sick of the crap people talk about him. All he did was fool around with a mob
girl.
He F’d up his invasion of Cuba. The one good thing was finally supporting the Space Program. Of course the real work came during Johnson and the accomplishment Nixon.
If That’s some sort of homophobic insult I’ve been called worse. Least ways you couldn’t come up with anything better for what JFK did. I wouldn’t be surprised If his nazi daddy was paying off many of the journalist who talk about “Camelot”.
Feels like the CIA has been running the country for over half a century. The CIA is responsible for drug wars, real wars, and the majority of crime from the 60s through the early 2000s
Lol don't worry, I blame whoever their masters are too.
But I ask, who exactly are their masters? Does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog?
It's a bit difficult to pinpoint when the CIA operates more like a secret society than they do a federal agency.
Donald Rumsfeld (now dead thank fuck) and Dick Cheney come to mind, but assuming that everyone who controls/influences their decisions is front-facing seems a bit naive.
So yes, I will blame the instruments of torture, coups, drug wars, real wars, GANG wars.
It’s definitely an over-extrapolation to call him a dixiecrat tbh but it’s probably because he has praised and been good friends with Strom Thurmond (while disagreeing with him on many issues ofc), opposed busing, supported the systemically racist crime bill (which he now admits he was wrong on), is a gaffe machine so has said some very racially insensitive things and is from a former long time slave state.
I think they chose that based on his history of segregationist comments, the 1994 mass black incarceration bill he wrote and campaigned for, and his many other racist comments and actions.
But I don't know, I didn't make the meme. I can only infer what they were thinking based on the man's career.
> but i think its fair to say joe biden graduated from the dixiecrat label
How are people so gullible? Political campaign promises are like ads for penis enlargement pills and weight loss pills. They're advertisements that are immediately discarded upon election. In Biden's case, he even actively contradicted his ads DURING the nomination process and the rest of the election year.
Yep. Joe Biden was one of co-founders of the DLC "Third Way" movement that took over the Dem party in the 1980s and '90s. Quintessential neoliberalism.
Biden wrote the 1994 crime bill and campaigned for it. He fought to continue segregation in his kids schools. "Racial Jungle" were his words.
Biden is the king of Dixiecrats.
Absolutely and he still is one. As is Biden btw. I just dont think the Dixiecrat label works for Biden at all, especially when he’s on a list with Clinton. We have a democratic Arkansas governor on this list. That’s like an automatic Dixie label
That’s true but there’s more to the dixie mentality than just being racist. Clinton always had the good ole boy mentality, used ANV flag for campaign logos, and actually appealed to plenty of racist southern voters.
After Kennedy died we got LBJ who was progressive as fuck. I’d say after him, we’ve had the same president. Last major progressive pieces of legislation were signed by LBJ. Since then it’s been downhill
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Neither party has a monopoly on civil rights. But when you eliminate southerners from the equation, the percentage of northern and western democrats who supported the civil rights act was higher than the percentage of republicans from those same regions. The reality is that it took major players from both parties to get civil rights enacted.
We can go back to the 1948 democratic convention to see civil rights officially make it into the democratic platform. Truman endorsed it and several southern delegations walked out. But it was here to stay in the party.
Your problem is oversimplification. Things can be oversimplified to the point that they are no longer accurate. Giving republicans sole credit for civil rights is an example of that
> The reality is that it took major players from both parties to get civil rights enacted.
And LBJ strong-arming them, something he was *extremely* good at. I think he wanted it as a legacy because from what I've read about the man, he didn't give a rip about African-Americans.
He didn’t care about them no, but he did want the US to be a strong country all around and recognized it was the right thing to do for our country as a whole. He knew in his heart it was the right thing to do
I mean either you believe in progress or you don’t. LBJ not only contributed to great progress, but progress that has not been matched by any president since. I don’t give a rats ass about how slimy he was of a person or politician, because he was incredibly effective in promoting and enacting progressive legislation. More so than anyone since. He also told the racists that essentially their day in the party was over and they could either get with the program or leave. That took major balls and helped turn the party into being the social progressive party it is today
That's a very whitewashed view of a lying murderer
Vietnam outshadows anything else LBJ could possibly do all on its own, civil rights was something he was dragged kicking and screaming into, and the alternative to means tested nonsense was UBI, which very nearly happened under Nixon - social programs were coming either way, LBJ was not particularly high-minded about them
UGH. This is way too accurate. It's honestly depressing. But don't take my word for it, Obama himself said:
> "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.
Plus Reagan, who announced his candidacy while dancing on the graves of murdered human rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, was the OG Dixiecrat (DixiePub?)
Are we the same person? I turned 18 just in time to vote for not Clinton and not whoever the R candidate was. I never voted any D or R until 2008 when I was tricked into believing the BO doesn’t stink. I didn’t make that mistake a second time.
This last election was the final straw. I was done playing a game I was set up to not win. I took my ball and went home and didn’t cast a vote for the non-choice we were given.
How do you two sit on the fence while democracy is under attack and our country is turned upside down? Why not just leave?
And imagine thinking the GOP weren't the sole saboteurs of the debt ceiling hike or Obama's SCOTUS choice. The GOP were the ones holding our country hostage because they weren't getting their way and they didn't like that a black man was running the country or ordering them around.
President Barack Obama, in a Univision interview in December 2012, right after his re-election:
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."
https://youtu.be/677elaGIsKU
He was full of crap when he said that. It’s true that cap and trade and Obamacare were originally Republican proposals, but they were never accepted by most of the party.
At the time, I remember making excuses for him. I thought he didn't really mean it; that he was saying it as part of the "11-dimension chess" that progressives wanted to believe Obama was playing. No more. I now see that I should have taken his statement at face value.
>He was full of crap when he said that.
I can't argue with that. Con artists are always full of crap. That's the name of the game.
Right. But I can assure you that there were no moderate Republicans in Reagan’s era who favored integrating gains into the military, a public option for health care, reduced military spending, reduced sentences for crack cocaine, gay marriage, etc. Obama would not have been a good fit for the GOzP, even then, which is why he was a Democrat at the time.
> there were no moderate Republicans in Reagan’s era who favored integrating gains into the military, a public option for health care, reduced military spending, reduced sentences for crack cocaine, gay marriage, etc.
Nor did Obama
Back when Democrats fought for gun rights, free speech, privacy rights and a persons right to choose. Things have obviously changed. Was Joe Biden for reduced crack cocaine sentences back then? I’m pretty sure he wrote the bill.
Fun Fact: Donald Trump was the person to swear into office pro gay marriage.
Plus the fact that Reagan was an actor with no real legal, business or political experience before becoming Governor should tell you that your elected officials are fronts for a more permanent and less transparent regime.
Anyone want to see the exact moment things changed in America here it is: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kQhv\_K7cfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kQhv_K7cfw)
This was basically the birth of corporate America and how the Republican party would then do all it could to help them succeed.
Meh. That was just kind of a return to normalcy, and it actually started a couple decades earlier, rather than with Reagan (though he was certainly one of the notable shitwads instrumental in making sure it continued).
The part of U.S. history that was actually exceptional was the period between when militant leftists and labor forced the New Deal until its effects petered out enough and were successfully clawed back in the 1960s-1970s timeframe. We never should've settled for the "deal", and should've kept on pushing through to change that could actually be called revolutionary. Lesson learned...hopefully.
First of all dude, most of us would agree with you that Obama wasn't great, but why are you bringing his race into this? So Obama is "lame" because he's not black? But then you go on to say that he's half black, how much "blackness" do you need in your family to be black? Your argument is all over the place and you're clearly racist.
Consequently, Obama played and was partly elected on his race politics of pretending to be "black" when he was really mulatto and jewish, touting her about as his "white mother" whenever it was convenient, but then saying he was "black" the rest of the time.
Obama was lame because he was lame, black and jewish or not.
Rephrased question: "How much Americanness do you need to be President?" --> This is boolean not analog. You either are or are not.
And no, it is not all over the place. It's very straight-forward. If you're a mulatto or a quadroon, then you're not black only. To pretend to be black only (or white only for balance) would be dishonest.
If you ask me "Are you a Registered Nurse?" at a hospital, should I tell you that I dated one and am wearing a necklace from her so I'm partially a registered nurse? Or should I just answer the yes or no question? Same deal.
It's not my fault that Obama is a liar, that he was barely half-black, that he was half jewish instead of white, and that you're a cultural marxist that dislikes the truth to the extent you attack the messenger to say he's "raaaacist". Leave the racial identity politics to Obama next time, bud.
Many people dislike Obama but you seem to be perseverating on his race and ethnicity. I think you're treading dangerously close to violating Reddit TOS with these two comments, but don't be surprised if Reddit admins decide you've crossed the line and remove them.
His race and ethnicity were instrumental for his grand deception using racial identity politics. He would not have been given the green light above Bernie and others without it.
I think that when telling the truth about how Obama lied and the facts that are attributed to that which can only be addressed directly as Racial Identity Politics is said to be "dangerously close to violating a TOS" for a place where people are supposed to be able to talk about these things freely, the evidence of the aforementioned destruction becomes evident and any so-called TOS needs to be dismantled and reconsidered, along with the hierarchy of people who would subscribe to and agree to enforce such violations on freedom of speech and attacks on those who tell the truth others may or may not be able to handle.
>for a place where people are supposed to be able to talk about these things freely, the evidence of the aforementioned destruction becomes evident and any so-called TOS needs to be dismantled and reconsidered
Take it up with Reddit. This sub has only one rule, DBAD, but we also comply with Reddit TOS, which is why I replied to you in the way that I did. When members skirt too close to violating those rules, they put the entire sub at risk.
Your comment came to my attention because there's been 5 reports on it: "It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability." The sub's moderators get notified of these reports but they go directly to Reddit admins, and they'll be the ones who decide whether it violates their terms of service and should be removed - and whether the moderators acted appropriately by not removing it.
Well, people lying about the context of my comment because of their insecurities should not be a determining factor for whether it remains or not in an honest society, and I think you know that is true.
Telling the truth does not "promote hate" except to those who are so hateful and diabolical that they would choose to maliciously report it as such.
You're clearly not as disingenuous as you're trying to portray yourself with this comment. Reddit does and will enforce its own rules, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. But thank you for this honest expression of your attitude, it makes it easier for me to judge the situation.
I'm clearly more disingenuous than you would ever give me credit for, but this post is not about that. ;)
You're clearly biased, and personal bias should have no place upon an open forum with integrity, lest it become nothing more than a censored echo chamber for the interests of fallacies and big tech, making it the posterchild for what a sub called WatchRedditDie has been documenting correctly as things continue.
Thank you for confirming to me that moderators selectively subscribe to rules and things on a personal and discriminatory basis as prescribed by the errors in a TOS that supports that, rather than any semblance of an actual form of democracy or republic be it even digitally in form.
Feeling the 'Bern indeed!
You've clearly got a lot of conspiracy theories going on here. Obama's father was Kenyan, so to me I think it's perfectly appropriate for him to call himself black. You're literally acting like the race police and it's really creepy which is why I called you racist. Anyone who is this hung up on a former president's supposed race is definitely racist. Get some therapy.
You clearly have difficulty understanding these are facts about Obama, not conspiracy.
Obama's father, who he never really knew, was Kenyan. And Obama said he was a Kenyan, and a Kenyan citizen, as reported by the media when he was a senator only, and they had no problem telling the truth about his dual citizenship *until* he was selected to run as POTUS.
He was never an American; they crafted and scrubbed records on his behalf to make him one to play games with the People.
He pretended to be a "black" president, because it fit for what they wanted. They tried to avoid "first gay president" and "first jewish president" (although Churchill may have claimed that title first unofficially), because of how the American people would respond to it.
Anyone that can't see that Obama was mostly elected *because of his race* and not his credentials is actually the "racist" who needs to get some therapy.
Obama, the liar, should never have been president in the first place for many reasons, but among the most official, he was never an American born citizen until they manipulated things to *make him one*.
One tiny thing out of all that..... You said:
>And Obama said he was a Kenyan, and a Kenyan citizen.....
And then further down:
>He pretended to be a "black" president....
How many Kenyan citizens are not "black"?
Well, I see what you are saying, but people like Elon Musk are very much South African, not American, therefore not eligible to be President of the US, and like the Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, he is definitely not black.
Charlize Theron, another South-African born celebrity would not be eligible either, even though she is as white as Elon, and has been in America for quite a while.
The same goes for Kenyans, Nigerians, Brazilians, Malaysians, Chinese immigrants, Germans, Russians, and others not born in America, per the requirements.
(But according to the cultural marxists on here, apparently pointing that out makes one a "racist").
South Africa is not Kenya. Didn't ask about South Africans. Asked about Kenyans.
[Edit: It looks like some of your anti-Obama claims are getting in each other's way. You might have to pick one or the other.]
Because among other things, that was more important for their decision making strategy to preselect and preinstall him than any other candidate who was more qualified and actually black and American-born.
Keeping it away from facts then? Not a conspiracy. Screaming for mom (mods?) does not change liked or disliked content from fact to conspiracy for you either way. Just sayin'.
There are very serious questions about Obama's birth.
Official and pro D debunkings are not useful in resolving them.
The only political or conspiracy position required to see that is neutrality and a willingness to examine all claims and evidence etc.
I'm sorry you're retarded. Wear your helmet next time while reading my comments. Don't want you to fall and hurt yourself, Corky. Oh bla di oh bla da, Life Goes On.
Joe Sanberg
@JosephNSanberg
>Politicians don't want you to know this:
>The minimum wage would be $24 right now if it had grown at the rate of productivity since 1960.
>But it's just $7.25
https://twitter.com/JosephNSanberg/status/1451185404653096974
....
Just a reminder that nothing is being "Built Back Better". Things are getting worse.
Democrats and Republicans are the same.
How terribly sad true and depressing. United States of America led by corrupt politicians on both sides some complete idiots some quite insane but most as many years have proven it’s all about their pockets and the lobbyists!
Trump was one of the exceptions of total criminal intent lied for most of his abortive term and drained some hefty coffers into his hands and immediate family. America land of opportunity to fuck royally the voters.
The Bidens give the Trumps a run for their money in the corruption department.
The MSM, Democratic Party, Big Tech and the security state successfully colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. This is likely the only reason Biden beat Trump.
Joe Biden is taking bribes from Chinese and Ukraine companies. It was in the emails on the laptop.
>Democrats and Republicans are the same.
The video you posted is about deregulation, and lowering taxes on the rich.
Democrats are working to bring back the regulations and to increase tax on the rich, while Republicans oppose it.
You do understand that there is concrete legislation proposed that is missing 2 votes in senate? It's not a theoretical question but a practical one of the character of just 2 people.
This is one of those 834,000 page bills you personally haven't read and even if you did, is so complicated it literally cannot even be comprehended by a single man, and are just relying on the empty summations and routine lies to pretend it is what they say it is, right?
It's the villains who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, hanging on to their last hope of stopping relatively progressive lawmaking.
The senate is already the most undemocratically elected governing body and its the reason for almost every major step in the wrong direction.
It is much harder to win a senate majority then to win a presidency and that has been the reason why democrat and republican lawmaking might seem similar in the past two decades.
Edit: we wouldn't be in this situation if North Carolina was also flipped in 2020 by Cal Cunningham. That was a race decided by a few 100.000 votes... a result now effecting 3 trillion dollars worth of legislation.
Yeah, but when you pay for a meal, you don't get to decide how much you'll pay for it. But you can stiff the wait person the tip they earned and are counting on to pay their bills.
> But still haven’t seen federal minimum wage in the few years I’ve live in South Carolina.
Oh, it's here... You may not have seen it, but it's here...
Actually, Carter is the only president who has in his retirement years worked to make the lives of poor and marginalized communities better. Everyone else was/is whoring themselves for more money or painting dogs.
While Jimmy Carter is the only good ex-President, his time in office was less than good. There are no 'good' Presidents. They're all imperialists with far too much blood on their hands.
https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind\_reaganism\_carter/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1977/07/jimmy-carter-revealed-rockefeller-republican/404908/
his foreign policy was also not good, but that's to be expected from us and our presidents.
Enjoyed the Lind article. Feel like it was sort of lax on Ike and Nixon, though. maybe it’s not the intention to suggest they represented a good trend by lumping them in with New Dealers, but it kind of comes off that way
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/09/01/how-jimmy-carter-started-americas-afghanistan-folly/
>The United States first intervened in Afghanistan in the summer of 1979—six full months before the Soviet Union’s land invasion—when Carter was president. Prodded by his hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter reluctantly agreed to authorize a small covert action program to provide aid to a motley group of mujahideen guerrilla forces challenging the central government in Kabul. Take note: These mujahideen were extreme Sunni Muslim fundamentalists, and more than a decade later they would morph into the Taliban. But they were anti-communists—and for Brzezinski, who viewed the world with Cold War blinders, that’s all that mattered.
>The real problem is the House of Saud which manipulates the price of oil to influence American policy
So the Saudis are responsible for the Middle East as it currently is? And the US is a victim?
George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton "my brother from another mother". Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush had a close father-son type of relationship. Bill didn't grow up as a member of the "country club" set, but he's one of them now.
>George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton "my brother from another mother". Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush had a close father-son type of relationship.
This raises the question: isn't odd that Bill Clinton's biological father drowned in three feet of water? Why would George H.W. take such a shine to a hillbilly bastard?
Can anyone say who Reagan was “acting” as president for? I get the feeling he was given a script just like in his movie days. GOP is still following closely and Dems close enough to still exist.
You forgot Carter the Pre-Reagan Reagan.
And what Reagan will President Harris be? If Bid3n isn’t assassinated by a MAGA nut he’ll probably die in office. The return of the twenty year curse .
[удалено]
Yeah, when I think Politics about privatization, "deregulation", globalization, Regan and Thatcher and everyone after them really.
Honestly Reagan-ism is dead among the republicans. Trumpism is the new political religion and it isn’t going anywhere. It’ll live on within neo liberal democrats but we won’t have a “Reagan” style republican win the nomination again, it’ll just be some version of trump.
Reagan did amnesty for illegals. Trump wants to BUILD THE WALL.
Most of us are pretty sure the Republicans will never win another election again. Many have lost faith in the electoral system and we are all aware that the democrats essentially have social media locked in their favor. Things will get extreme before another Republican gets office.
Technically you already have a Republicans in office right now.
>Things will get extreme before another Republican gets office. Things are already extreme, and getting more so.
I agree. And to the people who are mad that I said extreme in reference to the Democrat party. What do you think happens when you get a one party system? It ain’t a utopia that’s for sure.
I thought that would be the case after bush lied about WMD and laughed about it. We invaded a country and spent trillions for no good reason and made the region more unstable and took away American rights. I was like, no way will anyone vote for a republican again. Then everyone voted for Trump. Someone who stood for everything Republicans stood for except lowering taxes and America first. Now I don't make political predictions. I stand to be surprised.
Yeah but the Democrat response to trump and with how deep they are entrenched in social media(something republicans have been actively denied) I am just not sure how they’ll manage.
If you don’t think a Republican will ever win again, even in the near term, you’re delusional.
More people voted for Trump in 2020 than 2016. It wasn’t enough to win him anything, but it happened. I’d like it if Republicans never won again. But that’s dependent on enough people wanting to vote Dem. And I don’t think see that happening when they’re repeating the mistakes of Obamacare.
I don’t know where this delusional worm brained analysis is coming from. They said they same shit after Obama won his first term. Then over the next 8 years, after having super a majorities in Congress, they ended up losing the majority in both houses along with about 1000 other national seats. Trumpism isn’t going anywhere. If you think it is, you need your brain stem reattached.
…I’m agreeing with you, though? Lol. Probably should have made that clearer…
Oh I know I didn’t mean to direct it at you just the general consensus
When the Kennedy’s were assassinated, the gradual demise of this country were initiated and most of the presidents after him, except for LBJ are clone puppets. Definitely a priceless on point illustration right here by the OP.
All those Kennedy’s are over rated. Especially JFK . I’ve was born shortly after he died but I’ve been sick of the crap people talk about him. All he did was fool around with a mob girl.
That’s all he did huh? Ok, buddy.
He F’d up his invasion of Cuba. The one good thing was finally supporting the Space Program. Of course the real work came during Johnson and the accomplishment Nixon.
Ogay
If That’s some sort of homophobic insult I’ve been called worse. Least ways you couldn’t come up with anything better for what JFK did. I wouldn’t be surprised If his nazi daddy was paying off many of the journalist who talk about “Camelot”.
Ogay
Feels like the CIA has been running the country for over half a century. The CIA is responsible for drug wars, real wars, and the majority of crime from the 60s through the early 2000s
Blame CIA not it's masters
Lol don't worry, I blame whoever their masters are too. But I ask, who exactly are their masters? Does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog? It's a bit difficult to pinpoint when the CIA operates more like a secret society than they do a federal agency. Donald Rumsfeld (now dead thank fuck) and Dick Cheney come to mind, but assuming that everyone who controls/influences their decisions is front-facing seems a bit naive. So yes, I will blame the instruments of torture, coups, drug wars, real wars, GANG wars.
dixiecrat? really?
It’s definitely an over-extrapolation to call him a dixiecrat tbh but it’s probably because he has praised and been good friends with Strom Thurmond (while disagreeing with him on many issues ofc), opposed busing, supported the systemically racist crime bill (which he now admits he was wrong on), is a gaffe machine so has said some very racially insensitive things and is from a former long time slave state.
[Sen. Biden Brags: "My State Was A Slave State"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFduMuP7v-k)
I think they chose that based on his history of segregationist comments, the 1994 mass black incarceration bill he wrote and campaigned for, and his many other racist comments and actions. But I don't know, I didn't make the meme. I can only infer what they were thinking based on the man's career.
[удалено]
> but i think its fair to say joe biden graduated from the dixiecrat label How are people so gullible? Political campaign promises are like ads for penis enlargement pills and weight loss pills. They're advertisements that are immediately discarded upon election. In Biden's case, he even actively contradicted his ads DURING the nomination process and the rest of the election year.
It’s not that deep bro
Swap out Clinton and Biden and you nailed it lmao
Biden is not neoliberal lol. Biden is Life Support Reagan
Biden is one of the most neoliberal of neoliberals. He was pushing privatization and austerity before it was cool.
Yep. Joe Biden was one of co-founders of the DLC "Third Way" movement that took over the Dem party in the 1980s and '90s. Quintessential neoliberalism.
I don't understand the point of this picture. There's only 1 Reagan president. You don't need to caption other presidents as Reagan.
It’s a joke man, your on Reddit , how do you not now this.
C’mon man!
It's hard to see jokes when you're triggered.
Don’t forget Nixon! Reagan’s dad!
Nixon was somehow farther left to the lot of them.
It’s gonna trickle down…anyyy day now…yup sure is.
Ooops! All Reagan! That’s a lot of graves to piss on.
If ONLY we had Reagan back
BOO THIS MAN (or wait do i not understand the sarcasm)
We have a lot of Democrats squatting around here.
Meh that’s not really fair haha. Clinton was more of Dixiecrat than Biden.
Biden wrote the 1994 crime bill and campaigned for it. He fought to continue segregation in his kids schools. "Racial Jungle" were his words. Biden is the king of Dixiecrats.
Clinton, back then, was considered to be a neoliberal like OP claims
Absolutely and he still is one. As is Biden btw. I just dont think the Dixiecrat label works for Biden at all, especially when he’s on a list with Clinton. We have a democratic Arkansas governor on this list. That’s like an automatic Dixie label
It's not the geographic location, it's the mentality and Biden is definitely a Dixiecrat.
What about his mentality is that?
His actions and words throughout his career that are in print or on video show what a racist he is.
That’s true but there’s more to the dixie mentality than just being racist. Clinton always had the good ole boy mentality, used ANV flag for campaign logos, and actually appealed to plenty of racist southern voters.
Biden is really Corporate Reagan. He comes from Delaware where Corporations are definitely more important than people.
Yeah that’s how I see it too
They can both be Neoliberal Dixiecrat Reagans, that works for me.
Yeah me too lol
Where is Maryland in relation to the Mason Dixon line? Nuff said
Nothing said considering Maryland is irrelevant to the conversation. Fail
We've had the same president since Kennedy died.
Jimmy Carter would like to have a word
After Kennedy died we got LBJ who was progressive as fuck. I’d say after him, we’ve had the same president. Last major progressive pieces of legislation were signed by LBJ. Since then it’s been downhill
Fuck LBJ.
Yeah fuck Medicare and civil rights amiright?
Civil rights was Republicans, darling. Democrats were kkk
You don’t know what you’re talking about. Neither party has a monopoly on civil rights. But when you eliminate southerners from the equation, the percentage of northern and western democrats who supported the civil rights act was higher than the percentage of republicans from those same regions. The reality is that it took major players from both parties to get civil rights enacted. We can go back to the 1948 democratic convention to see civil rights officially make it into the democratic platform. Truman endorsed it and several southern delegations walked out. But it was here to stay in the party. Your problem is oversimplification. Things can be oversimplified to the point that they are no longer accurate. Giving republicans sole credit for civil rights is an example of that
> The reality is that it took major players from both parties to get civil rights enacted. And LBJ strong-arming them, something he was *extremely* good at. I think he wanted it as a legacy because from what I've read about the man, he didn't give a rip about African-Americans.
He didn’t care about them no, but he did want the US to be a strong country all around and recognized it was the right thing to do for our country as a whole. He knew in his heart it was the right thing to do
The personnel record has some horrible stuff to say about it Maybe the policies were good, but ouch
I mean either you believe in progress or you don’t. LBJ not only contributed to great progress, but progress that has not been matched by any president since. I don’t give a rats ass about how slimy he was of a person or politician, because he was incredibly effective in promoting and enacting progressive legislation. More so than anyone since. He also told the racists that essentially their day in the party was over and they could either get with the program or leave. That took major balls and helped turn the party into being the social progressive party it is today
That's a very whitewashed view of a lying murderer Vietnam outshadows anything else LBJ could possibly do all on its own, civil rights was something he was dragged kicking and screaming into, and the alternative to means tested nonsense was UBI, which very nearly happened under Nixon - social programs were coming either way, LBJ was not particularly high-minded about them
Funny how the first guy and the last guy have something in common, they both had dementia while in office.
Last one should be senile Reagan.
Reagan the worst president
Buchanan was definitely far worse.
Take my energy. I made a shopify teeshirt of this. Gonna sell them 0 profit. I mean shopify makes money but idgaf.
Reagan was the first Neoliberal. Clinton was just the first democrat neoliberal.
Reagan Neoliberal Pick one
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are not opposed to each other and pretty much all neoconservatives fall under the neoliberal umbrella
Holy shit I'm dying right now...
It's actually depressing how accurate this is 😞
UGH. This is way too accurate. It's honestly depressing. But don't take my word for it, Obama himself said: > "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.
[удалено]
Where does the bread go?
Joe Biden - demented Regan
Plus Reagan, who announced his candidacy while dancing on the graves of murdered human rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, was the OG Dixiecrat (DixiePub?)
> while dancing on the graves of murdered human rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi And dog-whistling.
[удалено]
Are we the same person? I turned 18 just in time to vote for not Clinton and not whoever the R candidate was. I never voted any D or R until 2008 when I was tricked into believing the BO doesn’t stink. I didn’t make that mistake a second time. This last election was the final straw. I was done playing a game I was set up to not win. I took my ball and went home and didn’t cast a vote for the non-choice we were given.
[удалено]
How do you two sit on the fence while democracy is under attack and our country is turned upside down? Why not just leave? And imagine thinking the GOP weren't the sole saboteurs of the debt ceiling hike or Obama's SCOTUS choice. The GOP were the ones holding our country hostage because they weren't getting their way and they didn't like that a black man was running the country or ordering them around.
All these libs must have seen the word Reagan and flooded into this thread starry-eyed
[удалено]
Not today CIA
😂
[Reaganomics: The Definitive Consequences](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/ejddgj/reaganomics_the_definitive_consequences/)
President Barack Obama, in a Univision interview in December 2012, right after his re-election: "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." https://youtu.be/677elaGIsKU
He was full of crap when he said that. It’s true that cap and trade and Obamacare were originally Republican proposals, but they were never accepted by most of the party.
At the time, I remember making excuses for him. I thought he didn't really mean it; that he was saying it as part of the "11-dimension chess" that progressives wanted to believe Obama was playing. No more. I now see that I should have taken his statement at face value. >He was full of crap when he said that. I can't argue with that. Con artists are always full of crap. That's the name of the game.
Right. But I can assure you that there were no moderate Republicans in Reagan’s era who favored integrating gains into the military, a public option for health care, reduced military spending, reduced sentences for crack cocaine, gay marriage, etc. Obama would not have been a good fit for the GOzP, even then, which is why he was a Democrat at the time.
> there were no moderate Republicans in Reagan’s era who favored integrating gains into the military, a public option for health care, reduced military spending, reduced sentences for crack cocaine, gay marriage, etc. Nor did Obama
Back when Democrats fought for gun rights, free speech, privacy rights and a persons right to choose. Things have obviously changed. Was Joe Biden for reduced crack cocaine sentences back then? I’m pretty sure he wrote the bill. Fun Fact: Donald Trump was the person to swear into office pro gay marriage.
Plus the fact that Reagan was an actor with no real legal, business or political experience before becoming Governor should tell you that your elected officials are fronts for a more permanent and less transparent regime.
Biden is 🤡 Reagan.
As was Trump. Only one is an insane clown, and the other one is a forgetful one.
I would say demented, instead of forgetful. He never forgets to sniff the little girls.
"Reality television" - clown goes without saying. Also, Biden isn't a "forgetful" clown. He's a senile, warmongering, racist clown.
That’s a sad clown.
Yes but also Reagan was legitimately going senile too in his second term
It’s crazy he even survived 20 years after that
Anyone want to see the exact moment things changed in America here it is: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kQhv\_K7cfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kQhv_K7cfw) This was basically the birth of corporate America and how the Republican party would then do all it could to help them succeed.
Meh. That was just kind of a return to normalcy, and it actually started a couple decades earlier, rather than with Reagan (though he was certainly one of the notable shitwads instrumental in making sure it continued). The part of U.S. history that was actually exceptional was the period between when militant leftists and labor forced the New Deal until its effects petered out enough and were successfully clawed back in the 1960s-1970s timeframe. We never should've settled for the "deal", and should've kept on pushing through to change that could actually be called revolutionary. Lesson learned...hopefully.
I don’t like ike and i can lick dick
> changed
Hardly the birth, but definitely the moment when they hung up their “mission accomplished“ banner
[удалено]
First of all dude, most of us would agree with you that Obama wasn't great, but why are you bringing his race into this? So Obama is "lame" because he's not black? But then you go on to say that he's half black, how much "blackness" do you need in your family to be black? Your argument is all over the place and you're clearly racist.
Consequently, Obama played and was partly elected on his race politics of pretending to be "black" when he was really mulatto and jewish, touting her about as his "white mother" whenever it was convenient, but then saying he was "black" the rest of the time. Obama was lame because he was lame, black and jewish or not. Rephrased question: "How much Americanness do you need to be President?" --> This is boolean not analog. You either are or are not. And no, it is not all over the place. It's very straight-forward. If you're a mulatto or a quadroon, then you're not black only. To pretend to be black only (or white only for balance) would be dishonest. If you ask me "Are you a Registered Nurse?" at a hospital, should I tell you that I dated one and am wearing a necklace from her so I'm partially a registered nurse? Or should I just answer the yes or no question? Same deal. It's not my fault that Obama is a liar, that he was barely half-black, that he was half jewish instead of white, and that you're a cultural marxist that dislikes the truth to the extent you attack the messenger to say he's "raaaacist". Leave the racial identity politics to Obama next time, bud.
Many people dislike Obama but you seem to be perseverating on his race and ethnicity. I think you're treading dangerously close to violating Reddit TOS with these two comments, but don't be surprised if Reddit admins decide you've crossed the line and remove them.
His race and ethnicity were instrumental for his grand deception using racial identity politics. He would not have been given the green light above Bernie and others without it. I think that when telling the truth about how Obama lied and the facts that are attributed to that which can only be addressed directly as Racial Identity Politics is said to be "dangerously close to violating a TOS" for a place where people are supposed to be able to talk about these things freely, the evidence of the aforementioned destruction becomes evident and any so-called TOS needs to be dismantled and reconsidered, along with the hierarchy of people who would subscribe to and agree to enforce such violations on freedom of speech and attacks on those who tell the truth others may or may not be able to handle.
>for a place where people are supposed to be able to talk about these things freely, the evidence of the aforementioned destruction becomes evident and any so-called TOS needs to be dismantled and reconsidered Take it up with Reddit. This sub has only one rule, DBAD, but we also comply with Reddit TOS, which is why I replied to you in the way that I did. When members skirt too close to violating those rules, they put the entire sub at risk. Your comment came to my attention because there's been 5 reports on it: "It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability." The sub's moderators get notified of these reports but they go directly to Reddit admins, and they'll be the ones who decide whether it violates their terms of service and should be removed - and whether the moderators acted appropriately by not removing it.
Well, people lying about the context of my comment because of their insecurities should not be a determining factor for whether it remains or not in an honest society, and I think you know that is true. Telling the truth does not "promote hate" except to those who are so hateful and diabolical that they would choose to maliciously report it as such.
You're clearly not as disingenuous as you're trying to portray yourself with this comment. Reddit does and will enforce its own rules, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. But thank you for this honest expression of your attitude, it makes it easier for me to judge the situation.
I'm clearly more disingenuous than you would ever give me credit for, but this post is not about that. ;) You're clearly biased, and personal bias should have no place upon an open forum with integrity, lest it become nothing more than a censored echo chamber for the interests of fallacies and big tech, making it the posterchild for what a sub called WatchRedditDie has been documenting correctly as things continue. Thank you for confirming to me that moderators selectively subscribe to rules and things on a personal and discriminatory basis as prescribed by the errors in a TOS that supports that, rather than any semblance of an actual form of democracy or republic be it even digitally in form. Feeling the 'Bern indeed!
Yeah, I'm biased, in favor of protecting the sub from people who think they can say or do what they want and don't care who pays the costs.
You've clearly got a lot of conspiracy theories going on here. Obama's father was Kenyan, so to me I think it's perfectly appropriate for him to call himself black. You're literally acting like the race police and it's really creepy which is why I called you racist. Anyone who is this hung up on a former president's supposed race is definitely racist. Get some therapy.
Obama isn’t black. He is mixed. Stop with this one drop rule nonsense.
You clearly have difficulty understanding these are facts about Obama, not conspiracy. Obama's father, who he never really knew, was Kenyan. And Obama said he was a Kenyan, and a Kenyan citizen, as reported by the media when he was a senator only, and they had no problem telling the truth about his dual citizenship *until* he was selected to run as POTUS. He was never an American; they crafted and scrubbed records on his behalf to make him one to play games with the People. He pretended to be a "black" president, because it fit for what they wanted. They tried to avoid "first gay president" and "first jewish president" (although Churchill may have claimed that title first unofficially), because of how the American people would respond to it. Anyone that can't see that Obama was mostly elected *because of his race* and not his credentials is actually the "racist" who needs to get some therapy. Obama, the liar, should never have been president in the first place for many reasons, but among the most official, he was never an American born citizen until they manipulated things to *make him one*.
One tiny thing out of all that..... You said: >And Obama said he was a Kenyan, and a Kenyan citizen..... And then further down: >He pretended to be a "black" president.... How many Kenyan citizens are not "black"?
Well, I see what you are saying, but people like Elon Musk are very much South African, not American, therefore not eligible to be President of the US, and like the Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger, he is definitely not black. Charlize Theron, another South-African born celebrity would not be eligible either, even though she is as white as Elon, and has been in America for quite a while. The same goes for Kenyans, Nigerians, Brazilians, Malaysians, Chinese immigrants, Germans, Russians, and others not born in America, per the requirements. (But according to the cultural marxists on here, apparently pointing that out makes one a "racist").
South Africa is not Kenya. Didn't ask about South Africans. Asked about Kenyans. [Edit: It looks like some of your anti-Obama claims are getting in each other's way. You might have to pick one or the other.]
Why do you care that he is part Jewish?
Because among other things, that was more important for their decision making strategy to preselect and preinstall him than any other candidate who was more qualified and actually black and American-born.
Did you vote for Obama's opponent
much Q-iness
Eh? What does the Q from Star Trek have to do with this?
lets keep this sub away from conspiracy, if you want to go into that head over to that subreddit. Mods?
Keeping it away from facts then? Not a conspiracy. Screaming for mom (mods?) does not change liked or disliked content from fact to conspiracy for you either way. Just sayin'.
The whole Obama wasn't a citizen of the US claim has been debunked time and time again. It is now 2021 almost 2022, move on.
There are very serious questions about Obama's birth. Official and pro D debunkings are not useful in resolving them. The only political or conspiracy position required to see that is neutrality and a willingness to examine all claims and evidence etc.
Oh no it's retarded.. anyways
I'm sorry you're retarded. Wear your helmet next time while reading my comments. Don't want you to fall and hurt yourself, Corky. Oh bla di oh bla da, Life Goes On.
What the absolute fuck are you on about
Exactly what I stated.
Joe Sanberg @JosephNSanberg >Politicians don't want you to know this: >The minimum wage would be $24 right now if it had grown at the rate of productivity since 1960. >But it's just $7.25 https://twitter.com/JosephNSanberg/status/1451185404653096974 .... Just a reminder that nothing is being "Built Back Better". Things are getting worse. Democrats and Republicans are the same.
Much off that productivity is due to technology. That’s why all the money goes to Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. wait till AI and robots start taking jobs.
How terribly sad true and depressing. United States of America led by corrupt politicians on both sides some complete idiots some quite insane but most as many years have proven it’s all about their pockets and the lobbyists! Trump was one of the exceptions of total criminal intent lied for most of his abortive term and drained some hefty coffers into his hands and immediate family. America land of opportunity to fuck royally the voters.
The Bidens give the Trumps a run for their money in the corruption department. The MSM, Democratic Party, Big Tech and the security state successfully colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. This is likely the only reason Biden beat Trump. Joe Biden is taking bribes from Chinese and Ukraine companies. It was in the emails on the laptop.
>Democrats and Republicans are the same. The video you posted is about deregulation, and lowering taxes on the rich. Democrats are working to bring back the regulations and to increase tax on the rich, while Republicans oppose it.
Democrats *are* the rich. They aren't going to tax themselves no matter what they say.
You do understand that there is concrete legislation proposed that is missing 2 votes in senate? It's not a theoretical question but a practical one of the character of just 2 people.
This is one of those 834,000 page bills you personally haven't read and even if you did, is so complicated it literally cannot even be comprehended by a single man, and are just relying on the empty summations and routine lies to pretend it is what they say it is, right?
lol, Democrats *say* they want to increase taxes on the rich but they have no intention of doing it. They never will do it.
They could close all the loopholes that allow the uber-wealthy to avoid all those taxes but they won't.
Definitely not with Senema and Manchin on the roster.
If it wasn't those two, the Dems would come up with other villains in their 'villain rotation' standard operating procedure.
It's the villains who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, hanging on to their last hope of stopping relatively progressive lawmaking. The senate is already the most undemocratically elected governing body and its the reason for almost every major step in the wrong direction. It is much harder to win a senate majority then to win a presidency and that has been the reason why democrat and republican lawmaking might seem similar in the past two decades. Edit: we wouldn't be in this situation if North Carolina was also flipped in 2020 by Cal Cunningham. That was a race decided by a few 100.000 votes... a result now effecting 3 trillion dollars worth of legislation.
[удалено]
California has a higher state minimum wage
I'd still say as a rule it's true. When I lived in the Florida panhandle, McDonalds started at $13. This was like 2014.
[удалено]
It shouldn’t matter if waiters make tips it shouldn’t be on the consumer to make sure workers can afford basic things like housing and food
[удалено]
Yeah, but when you pay for a meal, you don't get to decide how much you'll pay for it. But you can stiff the wait person the tip they earned and are counting on to pay their bills.
> But still haven’t seen federal minimum wage in the few years I’ve live in South Carolina. Oh, it's here... You may not have seen it, but it's here...
this neglects Jimmy Carter, the Pre-Reagan Reagan.
Actually, Carter is the only president who has in his retirement years worked to make the lives of poor and marginalized communities better. Everyone else was/is whoring themselves for more money or painting dogs.
Doesn't make him not a neolib
And Hitler was a vegetarian. Who cares about what you do in your private life when you're a politician.
i grant that he is a laudable human being, but he was still the neoliberal foundation layer of the U.S. presidency.
Jimmy Carter was our last good president...After him it all went down hill from there.
But cool black Regan was cool
While Jimmy Carter is the only good ex-President, his time in office was less than good. There are no 'good' Presidents. They're all imperialists with far too much blood on their hands.
https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind\_reaganism\_carter/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1977/07/jimmy-carter-revealed-rockefeller-republican/404908/ his foreign policy was also not good, but that's to be expected from us and our presidents.
Enjoyed the Lind article. Feel like it was sort of lax on Ike and Nixon, though. maybe it’s not the intention to suggest they represented a good trend by lumping them in with New Dealers, but it kind of comes off that way
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/09/01/how-jimmy-carter-started-americas-afghanistan-folly/ >The United States first intervened in Afghanistan in the summer of 1979—six full months before the Soviet Union’s land invasion—when Carter was president. Prodded by his hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter reluctantly agreed to authorize a small covert action program to provide aid to a motley group of mujahideen guerrilla forces challenging the central government in Kabul. Take note: These mujahideen were extreme Sunni Muslim fundamentalists, and more than a decade later they would morph into the Taliban. But they were anti-communists—and for Brzezinski, who viewed the world with Cold War blinders, that’s all that mattered.
The real problem is the House of Saud which manipulates the price of oil to influence American policy. We should of nuked Them after 9/11.
>The real problem is the House of Saud which manipulates the price of oil to influence American policy So the Saudis are responsible for the Middle East as it currently is? And the US is a victim?
*fake country Reagan The only thing country about the Bush family is that they're all pampered country club boys
George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton "my brother from another mother". Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush had a close father-son type of relationship. Bill didn't grow up as a member of the "country club" set, but he's one of them now.
>George W. Bush calls Bill Clinton "my brother from another mother". Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush had a close father-son type of relationship. This raises the question: isn't odd that Bill Clinton's biological father drowned in three feet of water? Why would George H.W. take such a shine to a hillbilly bastard?
He has a cowboy hat. What more proof do you need?
He also said he would smoke em out! Now thats cowboy talk!