Can someone confirm this is real? I refuse to watch this piece of shit any more than I have to.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
724 points (98.9% liked)
Political Memes
8012 readers
3244 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
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.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As much as I’m not a fan of Trump, based on that snopes article and the context around what he said… it’s pretty obvious that he accidentally said country instead of something like company. He followed up with remarks that made it obvious he knew that it was a toy company.
Tbf he tariffed penguins.
I can’t argue with that
But how many accidents does it take? He always accidentally says the wrong thing. Its a pattern.
I also mispeak a lot, but that alone doesn't make me a dementia addled, fascist piece of shit unfit to be president. Him being a dementia addled, fascist piece of shit unfit to be president, on the other hand, does make him a dementia addled, fascist piece of shit unfit to be president
Thanks
At least you don't have a woman in office, huh America?
Hillary won the popular vote, so the "you're too misogynistic to elect a woman" take does not have a basis in reality. Also, you might have noticed that AOC is filling football stadiums in red states just by being willing to speak.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she'd change nothing about his policies. Hell, she didn't even put a platform on her website until two weeks before the election. Kamala was a legitimately bad candidate.
Kamala lost because people got poorer for four years under Biden and she very publicly affirmed she'd change nothing about his policies.
Well I think the problem is people perceived others as getting poorer or worse off but the economy was humming just fine and unemployment reached record low numbers iirc.
Like, in general terms, people did not get poorer for four years under Biden - but if that's what people think, regardless of the actual truth, that's what they'll act on.
Even worse, the perceived suffering was largely because inflations... caused by Trump's Tariffs and indiscriminate covid spending (essentially supply side, handing out money to businesses big enough to handle the paperwork vs demand side)
This among many other reasons is why I want Kamala to leave the governorship of California well enough alone. I don't want her coming here and applying her Republican pandering to the state.
Newsom is doing enough of that on his own.
Why is it that female candidates are addressed by first name?
Females like Bernie
Whatever is the easiest descriptor in context. Kamala has a unique first name in politics, "Harris" is not. Hillary differentiates her from Bill, however you definitely could use either if trump is in context.
Likely to do with how they tend to campaign, for some reason most tend to be more chummy and try to seem approachable then their male counterparts. (Its still bullshit, though)
She also had a lot of whispering in her ear about how to run a campaign, including from Joe Biden who still thinks he would have won. That's also partly the reason she started stronger then diluted her platform.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won. If Kamala had been white I don't think that would have been enough to get her elected.
But if Kamala had more than a hundred days to campaign, then she might have had a fair shot.
If Hillary or Kamala had been men they would have won.
Hillary won the popular vote, so arguing for misogyny in her case isn't a reasonable argument. As for Kamala, no. She'd have lost if she had a penis too. Her campaign was a comedy of errors and she knew it. She was even caught on hot mic once expressing worry about her campaign's ability to connect with young men. (Admittedly a tough thing to accomplish when you tell people you won't change anything and young men are struggling economically and lack access to basic necessities in your country.)
The only way the Dems had a shot here was to hold a primary and actually select a seasoned, authentic candidate. Instead, they rigged it like they always do and just happened to pick someone extremely weak.
The fact that she won the popular vote but lost the election proves my point. All the places she marginally lost in would very likely have swung to marginally won if she wasn't a woman. The hate we see rampant today was rampant then too, it just hadn't been given a voice or a face yet.
That's how the Republicans won that election, they realized there was just enough hate in just the right places to swing it in their favor. They just had to fan the flames.
The fact that she won the popular vote but lost the election proves my point.
No, it really doesn't.
That’s how the Republicans won that election, they realized there was just enough hate in just the right places to swing it in their favor.
Hillary just ignoring the Rust Belt during her campaign had nothing to do with it. Totally.
The lesson here isn't that there's too much hate in America. It's that the Democrats really need to stop rigging primaries for weak candidates. Their focus needs to be on the economy and the poor, not propping up people's egos.
I never said she was a great candidate, just that if she had been the same candidate, but male, those margins would have swung her way. Yes, even given the exact same campaign and mistakes.
I never said she was a great candidate, just that if she had been the same candidate, but male, those margins would have swung her way.
No. Absolutely not. That they had to rig a primary for her to even get the nomination in the first place demonstrates that your reasoning is incorrect.
load more comments
(1 replies)
did he watch the barbie movie and thought barbie land was real?
He’s also an idiot
Trump is one of those guys you find on one of those "lol shit Americans say" videos where someone approaches "random" people on the street to ask them history or geography questions.
Except he's your president, and because your country is "nice" enough to have the world exchange currency we all have to suffer for it.
"Trump is not cognitively there".
So, he's the perfect representative for the American people.
His cabal of gamification experts discovered that the flaw in the Electoral college system could be exploited IF they could find a common denominator for all the low population areas with disproportionately high representation in the EC. Turns out it's hate. Who'd have thought.
That’s a strategy as old as Reconstruction, utilizing an antidemocratic compromise baked into the Constitution by slavers who didn’t want the anti-slavery popular vote to have the power to take away their chattel. The brain trust behind Trump’s win aren’t especially clever. They’re just the latest schmucks to be soulless and hollow enough to fully embrace that hate-filled lowest common denominator, half a century after the last bunch finally got pushed out of power.
Absolutely. I love when people know their history.
In 2016, I'd have argued he isn't.
But now, after what we've seen out of America since, he is absolutely representative of who we are at our core in this country. Just wait until the supply chain breaks down from tariffs and people start to see empty shelves. You're REALLY going to see who the American people are then.
view more: next ›