this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
1680 points (97.5% liked)

Political Memes

5501 readers
1854 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 164 points 11 months ago (27 children)
[–] Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 99 points 11 months ago

This is the dumbest comment I've ever seen. We couldn't possibly be daft enough to elect someone that young! And a woman nonetheless!

/s

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 80 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I'd totally vote for Dolly.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If I ever commit voter fraud, it would be to vote Dolly twice :)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 102 points 11 months ago (18 children)

The people who think Trump should be allowed to run in spite of being an insurrectionist are the same people who support barring other justice-involved people from merely voting in an election

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 67 points 11 months ago

Fascism, uhhhh... finds a way

[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

People keep saying the GoP will ~~recognize~~ abuse this but they underestimate how little I truly care about politicians. They seem to think everyone cares about politicians as much as they care about Trump. If someone gets disqualified for some minor reason, so what? Seems like a good filter to keep only newer people in the running.

People in politics for decades become corrupt. It happens with power and time. So if they find a way to disqualify Biden, I don’t really care. There’s a hundred million other people who could choose to run. Maybe Greg from down the street might have a shot if politicians who do shit get kicked to the curb when they do shitty shit

[edit] used a wrong word completely. Adding some additional language

[–] macrocephalic@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (2 children)

About a decade ago, due to a quirk in our voting system which has been changed, we had a senator elected from a fringe motoring enthusiast party - and he only got a fraction of a percent of the vote. He was actually quite good because he was wise enough to know that he didn't know things, so he sought the opinions of experts, and actually read and tried to understand legislation. Unfortunately he only had a short term, but I always use him as an example of how being a good politician isn't about being the smartest guy, it's just about listening to the experts and trying to represent the best interests of your citizens.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 39 points 11 months ago (4 children)

If someone gets disqualified for some minor reason, so what?

I see the point you're trying to make, but I wouldn't say attempting to overthrow our government to remain in power is a "minor" reason.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think they're saying the people who care about trump think it's too "minor" of a reason to disqualify him and if another candidate was disqualified for what they thought was a minor reason they wouldn't care.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

People keep saying the GoP will recognize this but they underestimate how little I truly care about politicians.

This isn't about you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's not even so much that they they become corrupt. It's that they become entrenched and as a result they end up wielding power that far exceeds their office. For example, Nancy Pelosi was ludicrously powerful for a mere House member, and Mitch McConnell almost single handedly dictates how half the Senate votes on many issues. A second term for Trump would be the end of America because he controls a huge cult on top of any formal powers he would get from being the President.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And we thought by law Erdoğan could not run for presidency again, and yet did (also the first time because of his questionable university diploma but that is a story for another night kids)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ultragramps@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 11 months ago (4 children)

This is the argument that Raphael Cruz was born in Canada and shouldn’t have been a contender for the Republican nomination. I support this logic.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 45 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If my old folks didn't read the Bible that they claim to know so much about, what makes you think they read the Constitution?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The good news is, they aren't judges. The bad news is, there are a lot of judges like your old folks.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They can't vote for people not on the ballot unless they are in a state that allows write-ins, and there's no chance Trump would win nationally as a write-in.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And even if he was written in, he is still ineligible in the state of Colorado.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Floshie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Omg 35 ????? Thats kinda old

[–] psud@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's the idea. They wanted to ensure the president has a chance to build some wisdom. They didn't want youth in positions of power

[–] teegus@sh.itjust.works 45 points 11 months ago

That's how you end up with an ice clown who builds an ice town

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Forgive me for being dumb, but I only see the 3 requirements for being president Link

Be a natural-born citizen of the United States Be at least 35 years old Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years

Can someone point out what I'm missing?

[–] nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works 81 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

See the 14th Amendment to the constitution, added after the civil war. It prevents citizens who previously swore an oath to support the constitution (so any federal employee, person in the military, or federally elected politician including President), and who engaged in insurrection against the United States from being eligible to hold public office.

Edit: We really shotgunned you there, didn't we 🦆

Edit 2: Added info about oath

[–] joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 11 months ago

Hey I appreciate the quick answers! Woke up recently and didn't feel like searching so thanks for doing the hard work for me.

[–] danielf@aussie.zone 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm curious why that only prevents people who have sworn an oath. Why should anyone who has engaged in insurrection be able to hold office? Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I am only half awake.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They didn't want to completely disenfranchise southerners after the Civil War. There's an argument to be made that they should have, but I can see their logic in not wanting to antagonize people while trying to put the country back together.

At the time, people were a lot more loyal to their states than to the US as a whole, so it would have been a lot like punishing patriots for fighting for their country.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Probably because they’ve proven that they won’t follow the oath they swore. So if they get reelected and swear the same oath (that they’ve already broken once) again, we already know they can’t be trusted to uphold it. So we don’t even give them the opportunity to be sworn in a second time.

But since an unsworn person never violated an oath of office, they’re still an unknown and could potentially be trusted. It’s a sort of “innocent until proven guilty” situation, where the person hasn’t broken any oath so by default they’re assumed to be trustworthy. But as soon as you break that oath, you’re not going to be trusted again.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (4 children)

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This is why Trump was taken off the ballot in Colorado. The court found that he engaged in insurrection.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] breakingcups@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is this Dropout.tv's Sam Reich's father?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Yes, it is. But more importantly:

Robert Bernard Reich (/raɪʃ/ RYSHE;[2] born June 24, 1946) is an American professor, author, lawyer, and political commentator.[3] He worked in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and served as Secretary of Labor from 1993 to 1997 in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton.[4][5] He was also a member of President Barack Obama's economic transition advisory board.[6]

Reich has been the Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley since January 2006.[7] He was formerly a lecturer at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government[8] and a professor of social and economic policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management of Brandeis University. In 2008, Time magazine named him one of the Ten Best Cabinet Members of the century,[9] and in the same year The Wall Street Journal placed him sixth on its list of Most Influential Business Thinkers.[10]

He has published 18 books which have been translated into 22 languages,[11] including the best-sellers The Work of Nations, Reason, Saving Capitalism, Supercapitalism, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, and a best-selling e-book, Beyond Outrage. He is also board chair emeritus of Common Cause and writes his own blog about the political economy at Robertreich.org.[12] The Robert Reich–Jacob Kornbluth film Saving Capitalism was selected to be a Netflix Original, and debuted in November 2017, and their film Inequality for All won a U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Achievement in Filmmaking at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival in Utah.[13][14]

In 2015, Reich and Kornbluth founded Inequality Media, a nonprofit digital media company.[15] Inequality Media's videos feature Reich discussing topics relating to inequality and power primarily in the United States, including universal basic income, labor rights protection, the racial wealth gap, affordable housing, and gerrymandering.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

In essence, he's definitely someone worth paying attention to.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›