this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2025
835 points (98.6% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

7612 readers
775 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

MKULTA and COINTELPRO were pretty wild. Operation Northwoods as well. And the FBI basically admitted to assassinating Dr King. By the 1990s they learned to eliminate the paper trails, so probably no telling who actually knew what regarding 9/11 or the 20 trillion dollars that vanished into thin air during Iraq and Afghanistan

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

don't forget the CONTA scandal, illegally financing violent drug cartels to flood black streets with drugs, to sell missiles to Iran and fill private prisons with black people for slave labour.

it sounds like made up BS.

[–] ileftreddit@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, fairly recently (last 10 years or so) a private jet owned by a CIA shell company went down stuffed to the gills with cocaine. They were 100% responsible for the crack epidemic and the “war on drugs” aka war on POC

Ronald Reagan switching sides on the war of drugs such a twist.

and he was right "we do not negotiate with terrorists" he meant he doesn't negotiate, he just gives them what they want

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago

So nobody is going to address the missing Rs? Cool cool cool cool cool.

[–] onslaught545@lemmy.zip 6 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I've always maintained that we let 9/11 happen to drum up public support to spin up the war machine and further the conservative plot to take over the country. I don't think we orchestrated it, but I do think we knew and looked the other way.

We did it with Pearl Harbor, so it's 100% within the realm of possibility that we did it with 9/11.

[–] ddplf@szmer.info 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Can you elaborate about the Pearl Harbor?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 55 points 1 day ago

What am I gonna do about it?

Listen here you bastard: Nothing, that's what!

Oh wait, that's probably why they keep doing it.

[–] ordinarylove@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 11 hours ago (9 children)

all their culture about being lovable good guys who do a goof and like their music

IRL they are the most joyless, dispassionate people who inflict nothing but misery on the world and each other

i say dispassionate but they do love

  • caging people

  • abandoning their sick and elderly

  • poisoning their own children

  • bombing hospitals

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] sk1nnym1ke@piefed.social 31 points 1 day ago (20 children)

As a German I don't understand why the USA basically do have two political parties. I know there are technically other parties but they have no impact.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because they don't do proportional voting like you Germans or we Austrians do, most of their elections (and all federal ones) have one winning candidate in a state or congressional district.

And there is mostly not even a requirement for 50% of the vote, but the candidate with most votes wins. That creates the two party system.

The parties in the US are much broader than in our countries, it's very common for different members of the same party to vote against each other.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

Exactly, what that means is that we have a tactical concern where the more voters represented by an elected official and the more disparate they are the worse of an idea it is for you specifically to split a vote. That's actually why Abraham Lincoln (the guy who was president during our civil war and oversaw the abolition of chattel slavery) won his election.

This creates the irony of it being somewhat common to have a lot of differing meaningful political choices for city council, third parties being not rare in state government, third parties being very rare in the national congress (though some independents will happen, notably from weird states like Vermont, which is a very rebellious in a cool way state), and third parties only win the presidency in times of calamatous upheaval. For context the last time a third party won the presidency is the election I linked earlier in this comment, half the country went to literal war over that result.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It is actually 2 flavors of the same party. The USA is a one-party state, controlled by the capitalist party.

EDIT: lol you can downvote me while you decide whether you want to vote for the Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border or the other Israel-defending-capitalist-that-ran-on-"securing"-the-border 🤪

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

two the two people who downvoted this person, it's true though. any two party system is a one party system where all government decisions are made long before we find out about them as the politicians form coalitions within their parties. the republicans didn't become MAGA in 2016. they became MAGA in 2014 and 2015. 2016 was just them announcing their coalition

[–] denial@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago

"Winner takes it all" makes it inherent to the system. They really really need to change that. But that is hard, when it keeps the only two relevant partys in power.

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Google "Gerrymandering". It'll all come together.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh man, I'm not sure how to condense this much context.

  1. Since the days when the USA was economically reliant on slavery for land development and market growth, the US population has been split over the issue of race and ethnicity. Even before that, the USA was founded by religious conservatives fleeing the church reforms in Europe. "Freedom of Religion" was put into the constitution not to separate church and state but to protect church from state. Because of these very strong and very harmful ideologies, naturally the people split into two camps: for ethnonationalism or against.

  2. The US Constitution is very old. The USA as a country is very young, but it's still one of the oldest democratic systems of government still in use today. It is very flawed: utilizing the electoral college, capping the seats in the house, each state with wildly different population getting two senators, the senate confirming judges, and worst of all "first past the post" ballots. In hindsight a lot of this is terrible for a functioning democracy, but the ethnonationalist party doesn't really like democracy anyways so it's going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

It's kind of like how the Weimar Republic was before the Nazis took over. There is a united hard right party and then theres the SPD. You COULD split the SPD's influence into farther left and communist parties, but then if they don't individually have enough seats they fail to form a government the Nazis have opportunity to become majority in the face of continued inaction from the government.

[–] Asafum 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but the ethnonationalist party doesn’t really like democracy anyways so it’s going to take a supermajority to fix it, if you even believed the opposition party were motivated to fix it.

In other words literally never going to happen. The electorate has been hand picked by legalized gerrymandering that getting a supermajority is less likely to happen than getting bitten by a shark that's getting struck by lightning as you're winning the lottery :(

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Idk, we came close for like 3 months in the 2010-2011 congress.

We cod get 67 DNC in the midterms if we magically voted out all 20 Republicans, which would be very cool if unlikely.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have no impact for several reasons, but one weird thing about us Americans is that we're never happy. The Clinton years were peace and prosperity. Nope! Not having any more of that, in comes Bush. We did well enough with Obama. Nope! In comes Trump.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

I don't know about Bush, but the people who voted for Trump decidedly did not do well enough with Obama. Radical wealth redistribution is necessary to fix American society and Obama was not that.

[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't you only have like 3 who are usually I'm the running?

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

That's 50% more parties!

[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

We have first past the post voting, not ranked choice or star voting

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

CIA needs to be abolished, and everyone in the CIA who did anything illegal or incredibly unethical needs to be prosecuted for it (if they did illegal stuff in allied nations then extradited).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Weirdest thing? It's the guns. Definitely the prevalence of guns in the hands of civilians.

Oh. And also how they eat as if their healthcare was affordable.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Criticizing how we eat is like criticizing how the pigs in the farm eat.

We're not here to be healthy. We're livestock. Our health only matters insofar as it affects the bottom line.

[–] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That they live in the 18th century with 21st century things. Religious fanatics all referring to the devil in him and Jesus saved him - separation of church and state but there's references to god everywhere and politicians don't get elected until they're reciting lumps of the Bible in every speech.

[–] Honytawk -3 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

Sure, but just because some conspiracies are true, does not mean all of them are.

The vast majority are false and will never get a declassified file.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BorisBoreUs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

....better to never surface hard truths. Ought to keep them buried like authoritarian regines. /s

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, that was my first thought, too. The US Citizens have the right to know, once it's no longer a matter of national security to be concealed.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›