That’s how you looked to us 30 years ago.
Harsh, but probably fair.
Not sure about 30, but definitely 20 years ago.
Reagan
So around forty years ago
It’s election time in America, which means, of course, time to decide who gets the gun.
For some reason, in 2016, Americans decided to throw the gun into the monkey enclosure at the zoo. The rest of the world watched in horror, but were still unable to look away. Luckily, a bunch of opportunists jumped into the monkey enclosure too. A few made sure the safety on the gun was on, and others nudged the gun in the direction they thought it should be pointed.
In 2020, the gun was handed to a career politician who put it in a box and only glanced at it in occasion to make a point.
Then, in 2024, inexplicably, the gun was thrown back into the monkey enclosure. This time the monkey started throwing shit at anybody who wanted to control his gun, so now the world watches on as the shit-throwing monkey swings the gun around wildly.
(But don’t worry, America’s system of checks and balances will ensure that … HA! Just kidding. You think that a bunch of 20 year olds in the 1700s knew enough about human psychology and game theory to come up with a system that would rein in a corrupt king, as long as he kept others in line with bribes and threats?)
TBF, it did work reasonably well back then. You can’t expect people from the 18th century to design a political system that would work in the 21st.
Sure, they copied the British system and relabelled things. The British system worked pretty well.
They mostly copied the Roman system and then sprinkled British Common Law all over it.
No, they used some of the names from the Roman system so it wouldn’t be as obvious that they were just copying the British system. The roman system was completely different. The roman system didn’t have a “lower house”. Senators served for life. Rome had praetors, consuls and censors. There’s nothing equivalent to any of those roles in the US system. The US doesn’t elect army generals which was a key part of the Roman system. Romans voted on laws directly, not using the representative democracy that the UK and US use.
The US senate is basically the “house of lords”. The house of representatives is basically the “house of commons”. The king was renamed to a president, but has many of the same powers. The supreme court follows roughly the same model as the British one. They eliminated the role of the prime minister, but then just recreated it as the speaker.
The main difference is that the US system is more closely based on an earlier British system when the king had more power. In the modern system the monarch is a figurehead who basically only has ceremonial powers and it’s the Prime Minister who’s really in charge. In the US system, the “head of state” has all the earlier kingly powers of the earlier British system, except that it’s an elected position and not hereditary.
He needs Jared Leto joker face tats.
Needs more dumpster fire in the background.
Pretty much, but its scary rather than funny.
More these vibes
Not at all. Ronald McDonald is a good clown who helps children rather than kill or fuck them (see Ronald McDonald House). Pennywise or Leto’s Joker? Sure…just not Ronald McDonald.
Nah, Ronald McDonald is a corpo-ass bootlicker who knows what he did.
Nah, this just look stupid. We see you as way more dangerous and pedo than that.
He literally couldn’t hold the weight of a gun. He’d also shoot himself and others while trying to hold it.
It’s worse than that. This would be an American caricature at any point before this, the current situation is much worse.
I’d be deeply ashamed to have a leader that’s completely immoral and maligned. Twice. And he never really hide it.
I think even here Americans haven’t fully internalised what happened to their country’s reputation and standing on the world.
We know, believe me.
We’re wondering why you are sitting at the table with him, trading with him, and using his dollars still. It’s revolting.
We’re trapped here, you are thousands of miles away but still you can’t stop enabling and your leaders are treating him like this is normal.
As always, my sincere sympathies and full support are with native Americans.
As a citizen of The Rest Of The World, I would say American right-wing politics looks like this: First, consider what would benefit the most people or the environment in our current situation. Next, enact the exact opposite.
It’s incredible to me how representatives of the populous who are supposed to be, you know, representing the populous, continuously pass laws that fuck the population over.
There is 60% turnout among eligible voting population. Half of those voted for Trump. That means only 30% of Americans vehemently supported him. It correlates to what I’ve observed that between 20-30% of population are extremists. The Nazis also won that much vote shares.
I think it’s worse than that. The central limit theorum tells us that a sample of the population, when large enough, will closely resemble the entire population. 60% if people voted, and of those, more than half chose Trump. If the remaining 40% voted, it’s likely they also would have chosen Trump. His popularity is definitely lower now, but I think it’s safe to say more than 50% if Americans would have elected the fascist if voting were compulsory.
It may be 30% that support him, but that still works out to be 70% that are ok with him, otherwise the ones that didn’t would have voted.
It may not represent every individual, but it represents the country.
To be fair, the other 30% voted for Kamala. The rest of 40% would have had different reasons for not voting either.
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the American political system would understand that not voting is effectively the same as having voted for the eventual winner. 70% of the US voting public were satisfied if Trump won, and a subset of those people actively wanted him to win.
Any reason for not voting has a “…and they were happy if Trump won” attached to the end of it.
I have to disagree with this. I’m gonna be frank, this is the elitist view that cost liberals and progressives the presidential election. I’m a pretty cynical person and while I think voters can be dumb, they’re not that dumb. There are always compounding and complex reasons for Trump having been elected, or totally sitting out the previous election. Progressives didn’t want to vote between two genociders and turn it to tally on who will kill less. Meanwhile, working class voters are frustrated with the cost of living not being able to be met voted for Trump. You might be surprised to hear that the working class constituents who voted for Trump are from the base of The Squad of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’ and Rashida T’laib. AOC asked her constituents as to why they voted for Trump and all of them expressed discontent with Democratic establishment’s lack of urgency and broken promises, especially with the cost of living. They did not vote Trump because they tolerate or like him, they voted him in protest against the establishment Democrats.
At the very least, many populist progressives are getting elected and primarying establishment Dems. In that way, the Democratic Party is being morphed to become more progressive and return to working class roots.
I think it’s a lot simpler than that.
Americans already knew what Trump was like. He was being charged with felonies prior to voting.
If you didn’t want Trump there was only one action to take: vote for the other party. 70% of people didn’t do that, so whether through apathy or desire that 70% were fine if Trump won.
Trump represents what the US wants, and it’s disturbing.
In every general election, there are exactly three options:
-
Viable party #1.
-
Viable party #2.
-
Nonparticipation.
Many Americans think there are more options. There aren’t. Third parties, write-ins, etc. are all permutations of #3. I love seeing establishment Dems losing their primaries to DSA candidates, but if they don’t I’d rather vote strategically than sit out the election and watch fascist kid fuckers take over my country.
-
Needs to be pointing that gun at his foot.
that’s what it looked like the first time
the second time, it’s much more ominous and intentional (less clown, more straight up psychopathic)
Not nearly gross enough but it’s a start
Clinton was friendly and jolly Obama was a cool personality
the rest not so much
