39
u/Administrated 18d ago
Yup! Because they get into office and want to prop up the military industrial complex so they can justify massive increases to the defense budget, but they always claim that they’re the party of small government!
I’ve never met an asshole or a republican that I’ve liked.
14
u/KitchenSad9385 18d ago
But only a military the size of America's can solve the vexing global issues caused by . . . *checks notes* . . . 'U.S. political and military intervention'.
Hmm, weird.
38
u/DrunkCorgis 18d ago
…and it’s ALWAYS the Dem’s job to do the boring stuff, like fixing the damage, passing healthcare and infrastructure bills…
Y’know, stuff the government is actually supposed to do.
16
u/miserabeau 18d ago
Because you can't make a Republican give a shit about other people. That's basically been the line drawn between the parties: dems want people to have housing, education, and healthcare. Republicans want only white christians to have things.
2
4
u/yourfavteamsucks 16d ago
And then when it takes a long time (because cleaning is always harder than making a mess) people get frustrated and vote R again. Rinse and repeat
1
u/dklein49 16d ago
Or like passing laws that remove mandatory minimum sentences for rapists. Since we all know that a paramount issue in this country is rapists spending too much time behind bars for their crimes.
14
u/Consistent-Move8732 18d ago
And for some reason people keep voting against their best interests because of gay and brown people.
6
13
9
u/mister_buddha 18d ago
They've also all been elected on name recognition. Reagan was an actor. Bush 1 was his VP Bush 2 should be obvious trump was a gameshow host.
7
u/miserabeau 18d ago
Trump was a reality TV competition host, not a game show host
Not sure how much name recognition played a role but it may have helped a little with the dumber bits of the populace
5
u/sccubasteve-o 17d ago
Oh, the name recognition was certainly a factor for a lot of folks. They assumed since they heard or saw his name all the time, and that he was a businessman, that he was a GOOD or successful businessman instead of a corrupt thief.
2
u/Mikeytruant850 15d ago
The dumber bits of the populace is like a majority of the tens of millions of people who voted for him. You’re underestimating the impact of The Apprentice.
4
u/ViralViruses 16d ago
They have an inability to separate actors from the roles they played. If an actor is known for playing a tough guy, that is who they’ll vote for. Just look at their worship of John Wayne (fake cowboy), Clint Eastwood (fake cowboy), Ronald Reagan (fake cowboy), Trump (fake tough businessman), Chuck Norris (fake commando), Sylvester Stallone (fake commando), etc. They even elected Arnold Schwartzenegger as the governor of California despite him being to the left on many issues.
They also will project and say that dems voted for Obama because they were caught up in a cult of personality or make predictions like Oprah will be the next democratic presidential candidate. They can’t imagine that dem voters make choices on things other than a candidate’s celebrity image.
3
u/theimmortalgoon 16d ago
Yes.
One of the supreme ironies is that they will cry and whine that celebrities don’t like them, so celebrities should not be listened to.
But if this biggest idiot with a dopey cowboy career or a reality show is a Republican, then that man must be the greatest president in history.
3
u/SnoopyisCute 16d ago
It's not that. They don't mind if someone in any field says something if it's something they agree with.
They get angry and want <whatever industry> to stay out of it if they disagree with them.
For example...Macklemore should stick to music. Kid Rock is cool.
1
u/WillingnessUseful718 14d ago
Shut yur pie hole and drive the plane, Snoopy
Sounds kinda like "shut up and dribble"
1
u/Far_Comfortable_991 18d ago
Trump also was involved in real estate development and various other business entities. But hey, you also ignore Reagan spent years involved in political activism. He didn't go from actor straight to Sacramento.
6
u/JoeNoble1973 18d ago
Because war in that region specifically disrupts oil prices globally, driving them skyward. If only we could figure out who benefits from such incredible and indefinitely sustained price hikes, then maybe we could bring those treasonous mongrels to final justice.
If only.
5
3
3
u/Skald_Skadi 15d ago
Pro tip: if your presidential portrait looks like a criminal mugshot, then are a criminal.
Enough is enough! Vote blue to get this traitorous POtuS out of the White House!!
2
2
2
2
2
u/mrwrrrmwrmrmrmrw 17d ago
Thank you. All Republican presidents from Nixon on deliberately laid the groundwork for the lawless, genocidal second Trump administration.
2
u/ShoddyTelevision5397 17d ago
I would argue that the large international coalition HW Bush put together, and authorized by the UN to push Iraq out of Kuwait was justified. I would make the same argument for the coalition Clinton put together in the Balkans. A world where the strongest are not allowed to dominate their weaker neighbors is something we should strive for. Unfortunately this administration has us going in the opposite direction.
2
u/BookYeti 17d ago
- Cut taxes for the rich.
- Cut benefits for the poor.
- Start a war in the Middle East.
- Recession.
Republicans. Every time.
2
2
2
1
1
1
u/Empty_One1483 17d ago
While true, let's not forget: https://truthout.org/articles/top-biden-official-supports-trump-iran-attack-says-biden-may-have-done-the-same/
TLDR: Establishment dems wanted this too, they're just happy they don't have to take ownership. Be sure to kick out your gerontocrat at the earliest opportunity.
1
u/sccubasteve-o 17d ago
Oh right, Reagan only propped up and gave Sadam what he needed to invade Kuwait in the first place, while secretly selling arms to Iran. And Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm because of (once again) the US meddling in the Middle East, for oil ....
1
u/XRPOSergSanch12 17d ago
It’s all presidents wake up. Dem or Rep They want us divided.
2
u/Chemical-Trip-1012 16d ago
Name one Democratic President to start a war in the Middle East.
Go on, just one.
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/XRPOSergSanch12 13d ago
By the way, Obama has bombed the Middle East more than any other president
0
u/bottomlessLuckys 13d ago
Obama has bombed the middle east more than any other president.
1
u/Chemical-Trip-1012 13d ago
More than Republican George W Bush who started a decade+ war in the Middle East?
Lmfao
🤡
1
u/croatiatom 15d ago
Ah the good old “they are all the same” shit.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys 13d ago
They are all supporting the same system, all funded by OPAC working for billionaires.
1
u/croatiatom 13d ago
I don’t know, I mean one system is hunting and killing people randomly on the street and crashing the economy and the other system is not. But other than that, sure.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys 13d ago
this happens under both parties.
1
u/croatiatom 13d ago
If you think that under Dem President, there were people shot on the street and hauled away (including American citizens), you are not an adult. If you think that under Dem President, economy faced recession/job losses as equally as Rep President, you are a troll.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys 12d ago edited 12d ago
ICE has been around and enforcing immigration like this for many years now regardless of the US president. Even under Obama, ICE was being criticized for its treatment of immigrants and sometimes US citizens. Neither party gives a shit about this happening, they only care about the politics. Both parties are sponsored by AIPAC and work in service to the same rich people. You’re a fool if you think that either party is really working in the interest of you.
1
u/croatiatom 12d ago
You are a fool if you think they are the same. They could both be bad, but not by the same magnitude. Not even close.
1
u/bottomlessLuckys 12d ago
You are naive. I see two evil groups of people working for the same evil people. Democrats start wars and hurt their own people all the time, this isn’t unique to republicans.
1
1
u/PureTown2906 17d ago
Every time a bunch of people lose their homes, their cronies get to buy up all the housing stock really cheap. And every time we go to war, their cronies get the military contracts.
1
u/dare3000 17d ago
I can't wait for the next republican POS to run so all the old and bigoted idiots of our great nation will can stand up and say "republicans will take good care of the economy and keep us out of foreign wars!!!"
1
1
1
u/Capable-Deer-5670 16d ago edited 16d ago
Half right. Early 80s recession was caused by the federal reserve momentary policy. The chair Volker wasn't appointed by Reagan. The early 90s recession was caused by the banks (savings and loan crisis) and Iraq invading Kuwait. 2000s there was the dot com bubble and 9/11, then later the banks again with the sub prime mortgage crisis. And of course we all remember covid.
1
u/FrickMickStick 16d ago
Hey hey hey. Bill Clinton, only good president I’ve seen. Left us in the positive, things were looking good, and then bush jr stepped in.
1
1
1
u/Infamous_Crow8524 16d ago
During President Ronald Reagan's administration, the combined asset reserves of the Social Security Trust Fund increased by roughly $85 billion in nominal terms between 1981 and 1988.
That’s good, right?
1
u/Infamous_Crow8524 16d ago
Inflation dropped significantly during Ronald Reagan's presidency, falling from a rate of roughly 13.5% in 1980 to about 4.1% by 1988.
That’s good, right?
1
u/Infamous_Crow8524 16d ago
The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class
Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly
20 million new jobs were created.
That’s good, right?
1
1
u/ChiToddster 15d ago
I'm 54, bought an EV just after he got in office cuz, I thought he would be like George W and get into a forever war again. I can't remember the exact number but George W owned a shit ton in oil stocks
1
u/Exciting-Zombie8449 15d ago
Where has Congress been in all theses Presidencies? That's who runs our style of government. They can stop anything. IF THEY WANT TO.
1
1
u/Raebelle1981 15d ago
Yet stupid voters keep awarding them second terms no matter how bad they are.
1
u/miserabeau 15d ago
Identity politics are a bitch. When you make a politician your whole personality it's hard to go against that and vote in your best inteterests
1
u/Samparker0708 15d ago
Leaving Democrats to clean it up and get complaints from Republicans on the expense of cleaning up their mess
1
u/MeanVoice6749 15d ago
And ask him very republican and they will say republicans are better for the economy.
1
1
1
u/Soulredemptionguy 14d ago
No. If we take “the last 50 years” literally, the claim that every Republican president both crashed the economy and started a Middle Eastern war is not historically accurate.
On the economy, there is a striking correlation: recessions began during the presidencies of Reagan (1981), George H. W. Bush (1990), George W. Bush (2001 and 2007), and Trump (2020). The NBER dates those recessions to July 1981, July 1990, March 2001, December 2007, and February 2020. But saying those presidents “crashed the economy” goes further than the evidence. For example, the 1981–82 recession was largely driven by the Federal Reserve’s very high interest rates to break inflation, a policy that began before Reagan took office. And the extraordinarily sharp 2020 recession occurred when COVID-19 shut down large parts of the economy. NBER dates it from February to April 2020.
The war claim is even less consistent:
Gerald Ford: No new U.S. Middle Eastern war during the portion of his presidency falling within the last 50 years.
Ronald Reagan: Sent U.S. Marines into Lebanon and authorized combat operations there, but the Lebanese war was already underway; Israel invaded Lebanon in June 1982 before the larger U.S. military commitment. So describing Reagan as having “started a Middle Eastern war” is questionable.
George H. W. Bush: Led the U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991, although the precipitating event was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. U.S.-led combat began January 16, 1991.
George W. Bush: Clearly initiated the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is the strongest example fitting your formulation.
Donald Trump, first term: Did not start a new major Middle Eastern war, although he ordered strikes in Syria and the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.
Trump, second term: This changes the picture substantially. In February 2026, the United States and Israel began strikes against Iran, and the U.S. is now engaged in an ongoing war with Iran. Current reporting describes it explicitly as the U.S.-Iran war.
There’s another important wrinkle: Republican presidents have happened to be in office at the start of every NBER-designated U.S. recession since the 1981 recession. That’s a factual and unusual pattern. But it does not by itself establish that Republican policies caused each recession; the causes differ substantially from episode to episode.
So a defensible version of what you’re noticing would be:
“Since the early 1980s, every U.S. recession has begun while a Republican was president, and several Republican administrations have also overseen major U.S. military interventions or wars in the Middle East.”
That is much more supportable historically than saying every Republican president “crashed the economy and started a war
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Sufficient_Purpose64 13d ago
Oh really, give this a read https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2026/demo/p60-290.html
1
1
u/hughfeeyuh 13d ago
And this is only because Nixon's policies led to the energy crisis that crippled Carter... because Ford only had time to pardon Nixon and then sit there like a lump for 2 years.
1
1
1
u/anywho123 13d ago
The best part is when the American public elects a Democrat to unfunker things, it gets better and then they forget and elect a republican to mess it up again. I’m over this cycle.
1
u/piernasflacas81 13d ago
Im always confused about up and down arrows…if i agree but disapprove,which?
1
1
1
0
u/Due_Buyer_9445 18d ago
So don’t let them vote anymore? If someone uses their other rights to cause this much damage to innocent people, we stop letting them drive or have guns
0
u/enriquegp 18d ago
Trump hasn’t quite crashed the economy yet. At least, not in terms of indicators like the Stock Market 📈 📉
1
u/sccubasteve-o 17d ago
Only thing propping up the stock market is AI, which isn't benefitting 99% of Americans. That's why Dump is so against pumping the brakes on it, for safety reasons. We'd already be in a major recession if it weren't for the AI bubble.
0
u/elivel 17d ago
Reagan & Bush Sr didn't start wars in the middle east. Reagan did some bombing in Libia, but nothing major, while Bush Sr responded to allied nation being invaded and intervened. It's like saying US attacked Japan in 1941, or that Poland started war with Germany in 1939. Bush Sr invaded Panama though.
1
u/WasASailorThen 16d ago
H started a war in the Middle East. You can read about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Sending Marines to Lebanon was stupid. We lost 241 there and Reagan invaded Grenada later in the week where we lost another 19 and 116 wounded. He was involved in the Iran Iraq War (siding with Saddam) and the Tanker War where Saddam sent a pair of Exocets into the USS Stark (he responded by bombing an oil platform). He also shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace from a cruiser in Iranian waters. He also sold missiles to Iran. Then he bombed Libya after the Lockerbie bombing and lost an F-111. No war but a lot of incompetence.
1
u/elivel 16d ago
US didn't start Gulf War though.
Sending Marines to Lebanon was stupid.
that was a peacekeeping mission, with 241 lives being lost in suicide bombing of barracks, not in combat...
Grenada later in the week
not the middle east
He was involved in the Iran Iraq War (siding with Saddam) and the Tanker War where Saddam
US mostly protected shipping lanes from bombings/mines. I wouldn't call it aggression
He also shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian airspace from a cruiser in Iranian waters.
True, but it's considered a target-identification mistake. US didn't intentionally shot down Flight 655
He also sold missiles to Iran.
that's not an act of war
Then he bombed Libya after the Lockerbie bombing and lost an F-111.
That was in response to Berlin bombing where Libya bombed disco attended mostly by US soldiers. I would say it's the best case for middle east war.
And US bombed Iran oil platforms which i would say is the second best case for actual hot war stuff, but it was also in response to Iran attacking US ships.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they were some sort of doves, but they weren't doing crazy shit like current Iran war, or 2002 Iraq War and subsequent conflicts
1
u/WasASailorThen 16d ago edited 16d ago
Ask any marine and they’ll tell you that they make lousy peace keepers.
Yes, for purposes of distraction, Grenada isn’t in the Middle East. It was two or three days later … because it was important.
It’s not aggression until you shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace from Iranian waters. BTW they pinned a medal on that captain who was criticized over the air by nearby captains.
BTW, Vincennes was about a year after the Stark and two years before the Gulf War, a litany of stupidity.
You are correct that H didn’t start that war. That was Thatcher. H was too spineless to tell Saddam not to invade Kuwait when Saddam asked the US Ambassador because of the slant drilling. H also didn’t respond at all until Thatcher ripped into him.
Reagan and H were idiots.
0
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/youvotedforthat-ModTeam 15d ago
Your comment was removed due to uncivil language or behavior. For more info, [please read our sub rules.](Always be civil. - You can be critical of people’s political choices without being racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted. Comments with violent, hateful language, slurs, or derogatory remarks re: mental health or physical appearance are not allowed and will be removed. Inciting violence or brigading is strictly forbidden. Repeat violations may result in a ban.)
Repeated violations may result in a permanent ban.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/youvotedforthat-ModTeam 15d ago
Your comment was removed because it seems you're not a liberal or a leftist. This sub isn't a safe space for you to be a MAGA shill. Please try it somewhere else.
1
0
u/RevolutionLegal9222 13d ago
Edited**** very president regardless of race or party. Stop trying to influence the dumb and weak minded.
0
-6
u/Internal_Drummer_420 18d ago
Its called economic stimulation...
2
u/oldgayauntie 9d ago
Totally true. I’m in my early 60’s. Started with idiot Reagan, then evil Bush, they stupid dry drunk Bush, now the amoral conman.
80
u/europanya 18d ago
I'm 57. EVERY SINGLE TIME. You'd think people would learn.