There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos
Based based based based based
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
1009 points (98.7% liked)
Political Memes
9600 readers
2385 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
As a foreigner, what does this metaphor mean? It sounds to me like "And at the end of the day... is night" kind of things, but what does it replace?
It means there is no future in centrism. The living armadillos choose a side. Those that dither will be hit by cars. On United States roads, yellow lines signify lane divisions between cars traveling in opposite directions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Apparently it's a book title of the same name. "A book of political subversion"
There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos Book by Jim Hightower
That's exactly what needs to be done. For starters.
Sometimes, I feel regret that Romney didn't beat Obama. Not because Romney would have been a better president. Just because of the timing, if Romney had won, then maybe Trump would never have become president, or at least he'd have been president later. Romney's still a Republican, so it would have sucked, but Trump is fucking poison.
That's an interesting thought... I can't help but feel like it would have just delayed an inevitable outcome though, potentially allowing the underlying political movement even more time to grow and fester. It's unknowable, but I feel like we'll be pondering questions like that for a long time.
It seems like logically, we should feel lucky to have such an incompetent campy comic book villain con man as the face of their ridiculous movement. But it doesn't feel like that at the time.
I would feel "lucky" if the dipship's popularity dropped to less than 10% support by the end of 2020 and never shown his face in public ever since. But now, this is a nightmare.
Now imagine how different our country would be if Gore won...
With all the nonsense about "fiscal conservatives", people forget that the last administration to balance the budget was Clinton/Gore - and not only was the budget balanced, it actually had a fucking surplus. One of the big debate points going into the 2000 election cycle was what to do with this surplus. Naturally enough the surplus went towards tax cuts for the rich and now we're fucking $35 trillion dollars in debt.
Someone will weigh in here with "deficits don't matter" and "the government can just print money if it needs it".
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because much of what's happening right now is a direct, racist reaction to the US having the gall to elect a black man president.
load more comments
(4 replies)
if whoever is in charge next in the US does not burn down the white house as a symbol of starting over, I will be disappointed
besides, think of all the Russian spy equipment that's probably installed in there now
Leave the white house. Burn down Mar a Lago
WhyNotBoth.jpg
Anything short of a full overhaul of every IT system that DOGE every glanced at is 100% necessary.
load more comments
(5 replies)
In reality the Dems will do none of those things though. They won't nationalize anything because they are neoliberals. They won't fully defund ICE because they want racists to vote for them too. They'll just reduce the budget and maybe stop putting kids in cages. They won't shut down funding for the exec branch because they'll say it is "irresponsible".
More things they'll never do:
- Demilitarise and defund the police
- Provide free public healthcare and education for all
- Raise taxes on billionaires
- Stop mass surveillance programs
- Reform the electoral system to allow proportional representation
- Properly regulate and tax corporations
- Stop providing weapons to their genocidal allies
I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Starlink shouldn't exist. it's unnecessary , we have better options... make internet a utility and force the companies we already gave millions to, to actually modernize infostructure and bring internet to undeserved locations that still have 56k
Starlink should 100% exist in some form or another, but it replacing terrestrial landline internet is madness. We can and should absolutely do both things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
I disagree that we should haphazardly be putting more stuff into space than needed... when we have alternatives...
Just because we can doesn't mean we should...
Kessler syndrome doesn't apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they'll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
"building orbital telescopes"
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It's like saying we won't build bridges anymore because we have planes.
E: grammar, a little bit
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Starlink should have been a global effort, so that we didn't end up with dozens of private companies all vying to put thousands of satellites into orbit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Running fiber to low density areas is expensive but there's no way it can be as expensive as launching all those satellites.
Even if it is, the ROI has got to be way worse for satellites.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
How is he allowed to remove the secret service protection from the former vice president?
What?
The former VP actually only gets 6 months of protection by default. Beyond that it needs to be actively extended, which Trump didn't do.
my understanding was that biden did extend it for a further year. trump actively cancelled that.
it wasnt just him letting it lapse, it was a move of spite
To be more accurate, he actively cancelled an extension granted by a previous executive order.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There was an order in the previous administration to extend protection for extra time. This administration just cancelled the extension.
This is the thing that has you dumbfounded you? The how is he...? Questions go much deeper.
Day 1 should be to Fire everyone even remotely related to trump. Then take trumps entire cabinet to a CIA black site. Then start going after the treasonous media figures. Then day 2 you can start fixing things.
He said when they take the house. In that hypothetical, they would still be moderately impotent with regards to what you describe, they'd need 2/3 of Senate too.
This is the most optimistic plausible scenario for 2027, not 2029.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Could they even do any of that with just the House? They won't do it anyway, but could they?
At this point it doesn't even really matter, it's just a question of whether anyone would step up to stop them. "The Rules" in general have already been well and truly trod upon and I'm not sure we make it out the other side of this without some restructuring of them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
correct analysis. Absolutely go down to their level. Weirdly enough, you will even take some of their voters away with that. Some of them don't care that much about the words, just the way they are spoken.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The current MAGA Republicans make neoconservatives look like angels. The neoconservatives are lesser evil, but it doesn't exonerate them from the Bush-era warcrimes.
Remember when the new Democratic President prosecuted the Bush-era war crimes?
Me neither.
load more comments
(17 replies)
I would!
Rambling on Twitter makes money. And politicians have finally figured out they can get in on the rage influencer pie, too.
It’s super effective.
Ugh, I can’t wait for Twitter to enshittify so much it withers away.
view more: next ›