this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
238 points (93.1% liked)

Political Memes

9301 readers
2666 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.

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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (13 children)

He’s also redistricting California

Eggs ain't chickens...

Besides, it's not on Newsom to do that, there's nothing he's actually doing.

It's handled by lower level state politicians deciding on if Cali voters will have a chance to vote on if it should happen.

If Newsom was just a megaphone and was talking about the work those people were doing to make it happen, I wouldn't be so negative about him. But he's textbook CEO claiming they personally built a product. He's Elon Musk before most people realized he's a piece of shit.

We have the best chance in 30 years for a progressive to win the Dem primary and then the general. We can't waste it just because Newsom hired some teenager for meme research.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 4 points 1 day ago (12 children)

IMO the best chance was in 2016 and when it failed the fallout was catastrophic. We can encourage people vote for our preferred candidate in the primary without insulting the opponent and creating tribalistic divides in the progressive party.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (11 children)

Nah, 2008 we had no chance. But when Obama won he ignored the DNC leaving neoliberals in charge.

So they focused on changing the "weak points" that allowed Obama to pull an upset. In 2016 Hillary was literally funding the DNC, and her campaign had final say on every action the DNC took and everything they said.

That wasn't even an agreement most members of the DNC were aware of, we only know because Donna Brazile blew the whistle as interim chair.

2016 I thought Bernie had a shot, but he never did. They very likely would have just went against the primary if he managed to win. That's how bad shit really was.

If anything I undersold how long it's been. Even back with Jimmy Carter the DNC faced a revolt because he was a hard right pivot compared to FDR and not really what Dem voters want.

The Overton window has just moved so far right, we remember him as the last good one and not the first moderate one. So I wouldn't object to the argument that this is the best chance in 50 years.

It's truly historic, but we had to go thru some shit to get here. And someone like Newsom would make it all worth nothing.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jimmy Carter was an okay president. Despite his "decrease government spending" stance he was still able to establish the US Department of Education, continued the promotion of peace and aid to impoverished and war-torn regions (a stark reversal of the more aggressive policies of JFK's foreign policy failures, as well as policies of Ford and Nixon). Due to economic insecurity of the time he lost in a landslide to Reagan who went on to cut taxes for the rich, very unfortunate.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Carter was "ok" but the party pushing him almost caused the DNC to split, and was the begining of a move to the right that lasted generations...

You're comparing Carter to everyone who came after and said he's progressive.

While ignoring the Dem before him is widely recognized as the peak of modern liberalism, the thing before neoliberalism...

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was aimed at expanding civil rights, public broadcasting, access to health care, aid to education and the arts, urban and rural development, consumer protection, environmentalism, and public services. He sought to create better living conditions for low-income Americans by spearheading the war on poverty. As part of these efforts, Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which resulted in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Johnson made the Apollo program a national priority; enacted the Higher Education Act of 1965 which established federally insured student loans; and signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which laid the groundwork for U.S. immigration policy today. Johnson's civil rights legacy was shaped by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Due to his domestic agenda, Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern American liberalism in the 20th century.[2] Johnson's foreign policy prioritized containment of communism, including in the ongoing Vietnam War.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

I'm not saying Carter was a useless piece of shit, I'm saying he's the one that started walking to the right, and the people after him went past the middle.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

A bit disingenuous to say Carter was the outlier and saying Lindon B. Johnson was somehow the baseline.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Are you calling JFK rightwing?

Truman?

Because go back any further and you hit FDR...

Compare Carter to the Dems before him, and he's way more conservative. Compare him to Dems after, and he's more liberal.

He was the tipping point, and not in a good way

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 0 points 15 hours ago

JFK was very left wing except for all of the times he bombed people for little to no reason at all.

Thats why I called it his foreign policy failures. He had a couple of successes, too, but Jimmy Carter had a much better track record with peace and making allies.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)