The only thing I actually miss is having a president with eloquence.
post
He and Bush laid the ground work for the Trump administration. Actually scratch that. All presidents from Reagan on did that.
That’s like an ongoing single morning for this admin, plus whatever crimes they cook up the rest of the day. Yes, Obama sucked. What’s your point, to say this admin shouldn’t be our focus, or to admonish those erroneously looking back with rose colored glasses and experiencing nostalgia? Because I don’t blame anyone practicing escapism from the hellhole that has been 2026.
I think the point is the Democratic party should not take their recent victory and go back to Obama era Democratic politics. They have the opportunity be be better than the party in the meme and they ought to take it.
Then say that. This meme doesn’t lead me to that thought. A good joke or meme doesn’t need further explanation or dialogue to get you there. This was poorly written using very old low hanging fruit. Just criticize the current leadership, they have TONS you can bring up without trying to tie in obama from two decades ago.
It led me to the thought so maybe it's a you problem.
If you’re only getting half the audience, its awful writing, so to speak. If it’s a me problem, it’s a problem, I’m the freaking audience. A key demo. You kinda want the key demographic to get the joke, ffs.
Take the al-Awlaki thingie for example. I always find it interesting that using drone strikes on an objectively evil group (in this case Al Qaeda) gets so many panties get knotted...
"The extrajudicial killing"... Do these people really expect that when fighting such groups, the only possible way should be to parachute in, wrestle them to ground until they submit and extradite them to the US to face a judge?
Imagine if we had to do that with the nazis
It's it important, legal concept of imminence. It's self-defense if somebody points a gun at you, and you kill them in response. It's murder if you go to somebody's house, find them, and kill them because they hang out with bad dudes.
The al-Awlaki case was more like the latter example. He was accused of being a propagandist for al-Qaeda. He had not taken up arms, he had not engaged in violence, and any threat he posed was not imminent.
Moreover, the Obama administration recognized this, and argued that the President's assessment constituted due process of law, without the courts. Practically speaking, it means that the President can charge, try, and carry out the sentence of death, and there's no responsibility on anyone's part to prove that it was justified.
The upshot is that, for example, the President can now say that you're an "antifa terrorist," and execute you, even if all you did was post a meme mocking Hegseth, and you have no recourse.
At a certain point, things turn into a war where it's impossible to go ask politely to turn themselves in.
If you 'hang out' with a group that's at war with the US, and not in your 'posting memes' sense but in the kinda more serious 'multiple bomb attacks' sense, yeah then you run the risk of not getting the full judicial process
Gah, I keep forgetting how hard abstract thinking is. In more concrete terms: President Obama accused Anwar al-Awlaki of being affiliated with al-Qaeda. We don't actually know if that was true. The administration never had to prove it in court; it just killed him.
The reason that we have due process of law, and courts, is to protect the innocent. Forget memes, that was just an example. Under the precedent set by Obama, the President can convict you of any crime just by saying so. You and I could be affiliated with al-Qaeda, and threaten national security. Period. Don't bother to deny it, you are a terrorist, and there's nobody and no process to hear your denial. No lawyers, no court, no appeals. If the President said so, so it is.
And that's dangerous.
Would you be in favor of the reverse? Other countries coming to the US and just fucking bombing your house because your an American and maybe you went on a date with a soldier one time? It's pretty easy to make this argument when you have the biggest gun.
What happens when someone else who posts memes does a bomb attack? Do you trust the government to differentiate between memeing for fun and memeing with intent to kill?
I always find it interesting that using drone strikes on an objectively evil group (in this case Al Qaeda) gets so many panties get knotted…
I'm so glad that we'll always be able to trust the president to unilaterally decide which groups are evil and to use his power in the interests of the people.
I mean, can you imagine what would've happened if some bad actor got in and used those sorts of things for precedent? Like, what if a Republican president had got in and decided to, I don't know, accuse random Venezuelan fishing boats of being "narco-terrorists," and used the exact same power to kill them for sport? Just spitballing here.
But I mean, what are the odds of that, right? Surely we can trust the United States president with the power to be judge, jury, and executioner for the entire globe. This is a very sane and reasonable position, and I just can't understand why anyone would get their panties in a knot over it.
Democrats aren't perfect so we must keep republicans in power.
Democrats aren't perfect so stop discouraging people from voting third party and using their influence to put pressure on the Democrat establishment. They've gotten this bold and useless because they know that no matter how shitty or ineffective they are theres a horde of 'vote blue no matter who' voters who will just bend over and take it. Because it's always 'the most important election ever' and 'not the time'. But if people hadnt started believing that shit decades ago, you wouldn't be in this position now. Sunken cost fallacy is real and is being exploited against you. Break the pattern.
I mean, I ONLY vote third party in primaries. I’ve even done some work promoting these candidates. But if they don’t get that early support, being on the ballot on Election Day is useless.
I mean, that's not true though. If the Democrats had seen a sizable percentage of their voting base swinging left anytime in the last 30 years, then they wouldn't have been so quick to try the failed strategy of courting centrist Republicans. The lie they feed you every time is that you have to suck it up and vote for the lesser evil 'just this once' and it works because their voting base is self-policing. But if enough of you had said 'no that's enough of this bullshit' decades ago, the world would be a very different place. It can't keep being 'just this once' every single election.
If the Democrats had seen a sizable percentage of their voting base swinging left anytime in the last 30 years, then they wouldn’t have been so quick to try the failed strategy of courting centrist Republicans.
I'm a third-party voter, and Democratic party hater, but I'm not sure this is true. The Democrats have repeatedly shown that they would rather let the Republicans take control, than let Leftists have a shot.
I agree with the rest of what you said though
It’s not a lie they feed me. It just the system they built. Everyone knows it and short of violent revolution, it requires dismantling from the inside.
And we’ve all tried sitting out or voting third party. That’s given us the even worse outcomes.
But establishment dems don’t even get on the ballot if they’re primaried.
I’m not really into accelerationist rhetoric.
When has a sizable portion of the Democrat base ever sat out or voted third party? Sure, individuals may have tried once or twice, but the point is that it needs to be a sustained effort that's not being actively discouraged by the rest of the voters. By calling them Russian trolls or bots or idiots or whatever else. I think it's way more idiotic to keep doing the same thing over and over, keep watching the party shift further and further right, and keep saying "theres no other choice! Game theory! It's functionally a two party system! Not voting for Democrats is the same as voting Republican!". That's such a short-sighted point of view, and only works if you look at each election in isolation, not on a long enough timescale. If you're not willing to do it for yourself, maybe do it for the voters 3 decades from now.
Democrats aren't perfect, so hold them accountable. It's not zero sum.

all 33 comments