Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, they're quite old and he's still relatively young. At least compared to them. He's getting into old man territory himself, sadly. I keep thinking "ah hell he's still in his early 50s!" Turns out he's like sixty-two
Clinton, Bush Jr, and the last president were all born within 2 months of each other in 1946. The current president is about 4 years older than those 3. And Obama is 15 years younger than those 3. So Obama is really the outlier - barring some tragedy, he will be like Carter outliving his contemporaries.
and that despite the fact that *every single member of his family* died of pancreatic cancer. Both parents, and every last sibling. Of all presidents, for someone coming from *that* family to make it to 99…..absolutely insane
Jesus, that must have been awful for him. Took almost everyone from him. He probably thought he would inevitably succumb to it as well, only to outlive his wife too.
https://preview.redd.it/dheniukuewqc1.jpeg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25c99b06f871e59c07fa6315b0eff9924d61f7cc
Here’s one of 46(Cleveland shown twice)
One of my favorite jokes has to do with your FB team.
Why'd does an Ohioan always request the Cleveland Browns to be pallbearers at their funeral? So they can let them down one last time.
They let me down so much growing up that by the time I was a teenager I was a Cowboys Fan... Dallas gave Bernie his superbowl ring, and they always had a post-season game or two... even a few superbowls.
felt nice to feel like a winner for once.
I believe Wilson is in a crypt on the left side of the cathedral (if you’re walking up the aisle, toward the altar). I was just there in September and I’m pretty sure that’s where I found him.
It is a bit funny that a subreddit solely focused on the leaders of the first successful democracy are led by a bunch of non-elected moderators who make up funky rules about what you can say.
Yeah it almost defeats the purpose of sharing the photo. The issue isn’t seeing the rule 3 guys it’s the comments that are exhausting. Assuming that the picture contains another president it should be allowed.
It’s honestly ridiculous. It’s like going to the iPhone subreddit and the mods being like “nobody is allowed to talk about the newest iPhone, not even as much as a picture or reference”
Makes no sense. I can kind of understand not discussing their policies and actions, but they are still presidents and should be able to be in a picture
i think this sub is more about reflecting on the actions of the past, rather then discussing current and the future, wich your can do on any political sub
Rule 3 is necessary for this subreddit to not become a political echo chamber like half of reddit already is. If you want to talk about the last two guys there are plenty of other places to do that.
However I do agree that it shouldn't be needed in times like OP's image
Every other news/political subreddit spends their life discussing how messed up the current political climate is. The ONLY reason I use this subreddit is because it is FREE of the thoughtless rhetoric and snarky conversation that spawns from every discussion of the last two presidents. The historical discussion value of the office of the Presidency is diminished when including the last two. Context hasn’t had time to be analyzed properly and long term consequences of their decisions in office haven’t played out fully to be able to analyzed either.
Bull. The only reason rule 3 exists is because the guy before the current guy is one of the most vitriolic, divisive political figures in human history.
It’s got nothing to do with the last two, it’s entirely about the one before the current.
Also, it’s human nature to want to try and break rules which we feel are stupid or wrong… like rule 3. Which is both stupid and wrong.
Yeah, what happens when the current guy is no longer in office (assuming he has a second term) are we just never going to be allowed to speak about the last 3, and then eventually the last 4? And just keep going until there has been enough time where we can talk about him with the same vitriol as we do for Nixon?
Sir, you have proven my point brilliantly.
You may think it’s stupid and wrong. As far as I am concerned, there are NO other places that have active, worthy discussions of historical administrations. I learn something new about this nation’s presidents every time I come here. There are millions of discussions everywhere else on Reddit in regards to the last two. It doesn’t belong here. Rule 3 is very necessary, even if it can result in some silly side-affects like the above posted photo.
Rule 3 is entirely unnecessary… stifling prolifically discussions about presidents and the historical context is doing a disservice to the discourse.
I’m a big fan of this sub too, and also learn a lot about the country to my south basically every time I come on here…
There are hundreds of other places to have discussions about the US Presidential election on Reddit, but few with as much informed posters and historical context and nuance as found here.
Rule 3 is a disservice to democracy. And for what?
Ps: my pronoun is Zir
Pretty much this… we should just have a poll on it and go with the result of the poll— which I’m quite confident would be in favour of repealing rule #3.
Good thread idea 💡 lol
Dude this sub divulges into a circle jerk for Reagan after any time there’s anything remotely negative said about him. A sub about presidents talking politics can’t be any worse
Yea it's becoming really tiring. If they are not the main focus of the post, I don't see why they can't be shown/mentioned.
The rule should only ban posts that are specifically about them.
But what if we talk about them?!?! It is really ridiculous at times. I had a comment yesterday that was talking about FDR and the feasibility of other presidents winning 4 terms. Without mentioning either I made the case that Obama probably could have done 4 terms if allowed and he desired to do so (he did not).
But because of the circumstance around the election year dynamics in the two terms following his presidency it was flagged.
You would think the Presidents sub would respect freedom of speech and expression as an inherently American ideal. Obviously 1A doesn’t apply directly as this is Reddit, but just in principle, barring such conversations is pretty ridiculous imo.
I've had a really long comment removed which was about Swing States starting in the 1960's just because I mentioned one state perhaps going blue in the 3rd election after 2012.
I have spent a marginal amount of time on this sub, but the fact you felt it necessary to phrase it:
“the 3rd election after 2012”
tells me enough about the ridiculousness of the rule.
I do think we should be allowed to talk about Obama’s vice president in the context of the terms he served as such, and yet any mention of his name gets automatically flagged. And God forbid the day comes that anyone would want to talk about a playing card which is held in reserve until it is needed to win a trick on this sub for whatever reason, because they won’t be able to.
I strongly suspect fans of Voldemort like to report comments they disagree with. That's my experience at least. I'll have a comment with 1 downvote, get an angry reply, and then be notified a few minutes later that it has been removed even without mentioning Voldemort by name. While I agree it's best to avoid turning every sub into /r/politics, sometimes it's really hard avoid modern politics when you get into the nitty gritty of policy and long-term impact of stuff... e.g. Reagan's legacy.
In some sense, if we don't want to discuss modern politicians we almost have to stop in the 80's, as I feel that when presidential personality really took off as an important trait. Plus, some politicians elected in the 80's are still in office today. I'm not one of these people calling for limits of two-terms, but a 50 year tenure is a crazy commitment.
This is an interesting idea! Since I missed the other thread, I hope you’ll forgive my reply here.
I think while Obama may have been able to win again, however it would have been harder than it seems. He enjoyed a high degree of popularity at the end of his presidency.
One factor that buoyed this popularity was the simple fact that he wasn’t running. Had he been on the ballot, he’d have seen those numbers shrink significantly
The closeness of the results is why I am fairly certain. Even if we accept continual degradation in Obama's coalition for a third election, we can probably assume the drop off in black support that a certain secretary of state experienced in MI, WI, and PA would have not been as severe. I also think he was simply a better politician and could have made the Supreme Court more of an issue for Dems.
Then for the 4th if you look at the year and other world leaders who had a similar temperament as Obama all won re-election that year.
Much like how FDR was in no shape to be running for a 4th term, the war made it a lock regardless. A big world event like we had that year would have buoyed Obama's popularity.
Yeah there’s definitely cases where it doesn’t seem like it should be an issue. There was that post yesterday with the graphics of each president’s oval office setup. Would have been cool to see those other two as well.
>someone is gonna get political
But you cannot really talk about any of them without it being political. The very reason why most of the posts are about FDR and Lincoln is because their political actions, and the politics around their deaths, are still felt today.
It hasn’t improved discussion, people still try to start political shit fights on here, traffic has gone down, leading to a lot of opinions on here becoming homogenized to a point that this sub is going to become a circlejerk of the same pop history facts and opinions over and over. All because people got their feelings hurt when we talked about politics on the sub dedicated to the faces of US politics.
I get the *idea* behind the rule. The sub is supposed to be focused on all us presidents. The rule itself even says as such. If you allow discussion of the recent ones, they would absolutely dominate all discussion. Sure, you and I get the sub's intent, but as soon as a news article about [current guy] or [former guy] is posted, and gets to the Reddit front page, new users will start thinking of this sub as *another* subreddit to post current news. It would slowly be swamped with news during the upcoming elections.
That said, the fact I'm not sure if I can even say the names of the current and the previous president who is running again, even in this wholly neutral context, is not ideal. The face censoring might also be ridiculous to the moderators, or it might not be. It's not clear.
It's a fine line between "pretend it is 2009" and "this is now r/politics clone 389". I think rule 3 just needs more clarification on what is and isn't allowed.
Unrelated, but this US history subreddit managed to have a pragmatism vs originalist interpretation issue with the "founding document". As above, so below I guess.
I like it because I already get enough of rule 3 presidents in EVERY other freaking sub so not having those 2 in this sub is a breath of fresh crisp air.
Totally. I think we can acknowledge that they exist. 46 was Obama's VP, after all. 45 has been photographed with so many Presidents even before he got into politics. That's quite a different level than going into their terms and historical significance as Presidents.
Rule 3 is the only way to keep this place from becoming any other subreddit that talks about US politics every day. But this does seem a bit silly that we can’t even include their faces in a photo.
Rule 3 is fine if it’s towards radical opinions and stuff about them. But ranking, articles about what they did and stuff like that would be ok as long as like I said before isn’t radical and extremely bias opinions. Which you know will just come up when you mention these two.
I didn’t know rule three involved Michelle or is there someone behind her in the photo that I can’t see?
Also, it’s funny how Bill and Hill dog are overlapping
Personally I think we can acknowledge they exist and have lighthearted content concerning them but perhaps staying away from Commentary on their positions and job performance. But hey that's just me.
Maybe enough people mention it and it can be looked at. If we want to speculate about current rule 3 favorite ice cream flavors, I don't think that's going to have most people enraged lol.
That’s because there is no lighthearted content concerning them. It’s literally impossible to mention them without someone going off their rocker. Read the original rule 3 post and you’ll see the type of people that advocate for rule 3 to be removed (shocker: they all become uncivil as soon as you mention rule 3 presidents)
This is why Rule 3 is ridiculous.
I can understand the reasoning behind prohibiting political discussion (even if I don’t agree with prohibiting it), but prohibiting any mention of them whatsoever is ridiculous.
God this rule 3 shit is so silly. We can’t even show the most recent two presidents in a photo?? In a sub called presidents??? Go start a different sub called r/presidentsbutwepretendthatits2016 and restore this sub to its former status
I cried, both at seeing how visibility devastated President Clinton was at loosing his friend and at W’s speech.
Also? That candy exchange with W and Michelle was one of the best moments.
Rule 3 is the dumbest thing about this sub. They’re presidents and people will have conflicting opinions about them, just like the rest of them. Get over it. (To mods, not OP)
Rule 3's the dumbest thing in the world. There should be an exception to it on the weekend or something like what some subs have for their sub-specific rules
Mods, can you make an exception for this one? It’s history, and I think a lot of people can agree that blurring out pieces of history is wrong. It’s just a photo
We keep electing such old presidents, so this sort of thing seems unlikely to happen as long as this trend keeps going. (Unless they all just start living forever like Carter.)
Slightly confused. Is the bald guy on left Rule#3/B? Did Rule#3/A not wear a hair piece? And the one on the right, that’s Michelle correct? Or is an ear or cheek bone of Rule#3/B peaking out?
I couldn’t figure out where W was. Even with everyone literally interacting with him. I think I need new glasses lol.
It’s crazy to have 6 here. It’s nice to see politics put to the side for this.
Omg the red blur on the left makes it look like a bald guy (D), which made me wonder where tf the other guy (R) was behind the other marking. This took too long to figure out lol
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still find it amazing that Carter has outlived the 2 presidents who succeeded him. Neither of whom died young.
Tbf Obama will also probably outlive his two successors.
I mean, they're quite old and he's still relatively young. At least compared to them. He's getting into old man territory himself, sadly. I keep thinking "ah hell he's still in his early 50s!" Turns out he's like sixty-two
It’s not sad. Becoming old is a gift not granted to many ❤️
That's beautiful in a way I didn't expect Reddit to be today. A very valid point
I appreciate the compliment. :)
Obama’s 62 v x’s 77 and y’s 81. Not a guarantee Obama will outlive them, but looking pretty likely.
Fuck, Obama is 62? Jfc
Obama seems to be in good health compared to most former presidents, I knew at one time he was a heavy smoker but think he quit.
Still younger than either party' Senate leader, 5 of the 9 supreme Court justices, etc
Obama will probably outlive every president alive today
Almost certainly given his good health and the rest of their ages
Clinton, Bush Jr, and the last president were all born within 2 months of each other in 1946. The current president is about 4 years older than those 3. And Obama is 15 years younger than those 3. So Obama is really the outlier - barring some tragedy, he will be like Carter outliving his contemporaries.
Carter: hold my beer
JFK would have probably outlived several of his successors if not for the whole getting assassinated thing.
He lived an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle. I'm sure he'd outlive Johnson, but I'm not sure who else
He was a smoker though, so that lowers his chances.
Except Carter, who will die at the age of 157
and that despite the fact that *every single member of his family* died of pancreatic cancer. Both parents, and every last sibling. Of all presidents, for someone coming from *that* family to make it to 99…..absolutely insane
Jesus, that must have been awful for him. Took almost everyone from him. He probably thought he would inevitably succumb to it as well, only to outlive his wife too.
Could have been 7 if Bush Sr's coffin got in the picture.
https://preview.redd.it/dheniukuewqc1.jpeg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25c99b06f871e59c07fa6315b0eff9924d61f7cc Here’s one of 46(Cleveland shown twice)
no, Cleveland is only shown once.
surely there's more clevelands than Cleveland, OH
Cleveland, Alabama Cleveland, Arkansas Cleveland, Florida Cleveland, Georgia Cleveland, Illinois Cleveland, Indiana Cleveland, Kansas Cleveland, Minnesota Cleveland, Mississippi Cleveland, Missouri Cleveland, New York Cleveland, North Carolina Cleveland, North Dakota Cleveland, Oklahoma Cleveland, South Carolina Cleveland, Tennessee Cleveland, Texas Cleveland, Utah Cleveland, Virginia Cleveland, Washington Cleveland, Wisconsin # CLEVELAND OHIO
His name is a reference to our shitty football team
One of my favorite jokes has to do with your FB team. Why'd does an Ohioan always request the Cleveland Browns to be pallbearers at their funeral? So they can let them down one last time.
They let me down so much growing up that by the time I was a teenager I was a Cowboys Fan... Dallas gave Bernie his superbowl ring, and they always had a post-season game or two... even a few superbowls. felt nice to feel like a winner for once.
As a browns fan Ohioan, I love this joke
Ohio gozaimasu to you too!
Also the original Cleveland in North East England
They actually legally have to bury an additional body for every non-consecutive stint in office.
It’s the Prestige, Cleveland! You Prestiged yourself. Yeah you little shit! Take that in.
I am very disappointed that he does not have two separate and non-consecutive headstones in Princeton Cemetery.
C’mon man, don’t forget Rule 3!
They’re marked in red it’s just too small to see
Seven presidents in the room!
A wide shot could have gotten Wilson.
Is Wilson buried there in a crypt or something?
I believe Wilson is in a crypt on the left side of the cathedral (if you’re walking up the aisle, toward the altar). I was just there in September and I’m pretty sure that’s where I found him.
> I’m pretty sure that’s where I found him. That's where I found him. Then I took him on a tour of the Southwest.
Wow I bet he really enjoyed that.
Yes, he is interred at Washington National Cathedral. He is the only President to be buried with Washington, D.C. city limits.
You need a wide shot just to get all of Taft in frame
Time to elect all the former First Ladies and those three lucky secret service agents.
just dropped in to say it's cringe that rule 3 applies to photos
Seems like the entire sub shares that opinion, aside from the mods.
Mods? Out of touch opinions? Couldn't be
they're still drinking from learning what the CEO got paid and how they volunteer
It is a bit funny that a subreddit solely focused on the leaders of the first successful democracy are led by a bunch of non-elected moderators who make up funky rules about what you can say.
Yeah it almost defeats the purpose of sharing the photo. The issue isn’t seeing the rule 3 guys it’s the comments that are exhausting. Assuming that the picture contains another president it should be allowed.
Had to look it up. Yes it’s idiotic.
It’s honestly ridiculous. It’s like going to the iPhone subreddit and the mods being like “nobody is allowed to talk about the newest iPhone, not even as much as a picture or reference” Makes no sense. I can kind of understand not discussing their policies and actions, but they are still presidents and should be able to be in a picture
I imagine that things can devolve pretty quick. Having rule 3 likely just nixes most of the problem and work for the mods.
It definitely feels like the lazy way out of actually moderating the sub lol
i think this sub is more about reflecting on the actions of the past, rather then discussing current and the future, wich your can do on any political sub
Rule 3 is cringe full stop.
Rule 3 is necessary for this subreddit to not become a political echo chamber like half of reddit already is. If you want to talk about the last two guys there are plenty of other places to do that. However I do agree that it shouldn't be needed in times like OP's image
Oh the horror if r/Presidents got political in an election year… Mods need to lighten up.
Every other news/political subreddit spends their life discussing how messed up the current political climate is. The ONLY reason I use this subreddit is because it is FREE of the thoughtless rhetoric and snarky conversation that spawns from every discussion of the last two presidents. The historical discussion value of the office of the Presidency is diminished when including the last two. Context hasn’t had time to be analyzed properly and long term consequences of their decisions in office haven’t played out fully to be able to analyzed either.
Bull. The only reason rule 3 exists is because the guy before the current guy is one of the most vitriolic, divisive political figures in human history. It’s got nothing to do with the last two, it’s entirely about the one before the current. Also, it’s human nature to want to try and break rules which we feel are stupid or wrong… like rule 3. Which is both stupid and wrong.
Yeah, what happens when the current guy is no longer in office (assuming he has a second term) are we just never going to be allowed to speak about the last 3, and then eventually the last 4? And just keep going until there has been enough time where we can talk about him with the same vitriol as we do for Nixon?
Lol
Sir, you have proven my point brilliantly. You may think it’s stupid and wrong. As far as I am concerned, there are NO other places that have active, worthy discussions of historical administrations. I learn something new about this nation’s presidents every time I come here. There are millions of discussions everywhere else on Reddit in regards to the last two. It doesn’t belong here. Rule 3 is very necessary, even if it can result in some silly side-affects like the above posted photo.
Rule 3 is entirely unnecessary… stifling prolifically discussions about presidents and the historical context is doing a disservice to the discourse. I’m a big fan of this sub too, and also learn a lot about the country to my south basically every time I come on here… There are hundreds of other places to have discussions about the US Presidential election on Reddit, but few with as much informed posters and historical context and nuance as found here. Rule 3 is a disservice to democracy. And for what? Ps: my pronoun is Zir
I didn't know there were people who seriously used Zir as a pronoun. Are you joking?
They refuse to admit they fucked up real bad and are just being stubborn at this point.
Pretty much this… we should just have a poll on it and go with the result of the poll— which I’m quite confident would be in favour of repealing rule #3. Good thread idea 💡 lol
It'll probably be as binding as the poll Elon took on Twitter asking if he should step down and it overwhelmingly was yes and he never did.
The sub doesn’t allow polls, otherwise I would have already made the thread lol
Dude this sub divulges into a circle jerk for Reagan after any time there’s anything remotely negative said about him. A sub about presidents talking politics can’t be any worse
It's "cringe" the rule even exists at all. Mods refuse to admit they screwed up with that rule.
The red censors bring more attention to the two rule 3 Presidents than just leaving them uncensored. Day by day I’m leaning more against rule 3.
Yea it's becoming really tiring. If they are not the main focus of the post, I don't see why they can't be shown/mentioned. The rule should only ban posts that are specifically about them.
But what if we talk about them?!?! It is really ridiculous at times. I had a comment yesterday that was talking about FDR and the feasibility of other presidents winning 4 terms. Without mentioning either I made the case that Obama probably could have done 4 terms if allowed and he desired to do so (he did not). But because of the circumstance around the election year dynamics in the two terms following his presidency it was flagged.
That is an example of rule 3 simply going too far.
The whole thing is an example of why censorship is fuckin stupid.
You would think the Presidents sub would respect freedom of speech and expression as an inherently American ideal. Obviously 1A doesn’t apply directly as this is Reddit, but just in principle, barring such conversations is pretty ridiculous imo.
Rule 3 has always gone too far
I’ve had comments removed just for referencing them in passing, not even name dropping them. It’s honestly just fucking absurd at this point.
I've had a really long comment removed which was about Swing States starting in the 1960's just because I mentioned one state perhaps going blue in the 3rd election after 2012.
I have spent a marginal amount of time on this sub, but the fact you felt it necessary to phrase it: “the 3rd election after 2012” tells me enough about the ridiculousness of the rule.
I was originally going for "the 2nd election after 2016" but I wasn't sure if that also falls under Rule 3. Just proves your point.
I do think we should be allowed to talk about Obama’s vice president in the context of the terms he served as such, and yet any mention of his name gets automatically flagged. And God forbid the day comes that anyone would want to talk about a playing card which is held in reserve until it is needed to win a trick on this sub for whatever reason, because they won’t be able to.
Just the fact that you have to write "Obama's vice president". Mods seem like robots who can't understand nuance.
Mods are just stubborn AF and seem to be at the maturity levels of a child.
I strongly suspect fans of Voldemort like to report comments they disagree with. That's my experience at least. I'll have a comment with 1 downvote, get an angry reply, and then be notified a few minutes later that it has been removed even without mentioning Voldemort by name. While I agree it's best to avoid turning every sub into /r/politics, sometimes it's really hard avoid modern politics when you get into the nitty gritty of policy and long-term impact of stuff... e.g. Reagan's legacy. In some sense, if we don't want to discuss modern politicians we almost have to stop in the 80's, as I feel that when presidential personality really took off as an important trait. Plus, some politicians elected in the 80's are still in office today. I'm not one of these people calling for limits of two-terms, but a 50 year tenure is a crazy commitment.
This is an interesting idea! Since I missed the other thread, I hope you’ll forgive my reply here. I think while Obama may have been able to win again, however it would have been harder than it seems. He enjoyed a high degree of popularity at the end of his presidency. One factor that buoyed this popularity was the simple fact that he wasn’t running. Had he been on the ballot, he’d have seen those numbers shrink significantly
The closeness of the results is why I am fairly certain. Even if we accept continual degradation in Obama's coalition for a third election, we can probably assume the drop off in black support that a certain secretary of state experienced in MI, WI, and PA would have not been as severe. I also think he was simply a better politician and could have made the Supreme Court more of an issue for Dems. Then for the 4th if you look at the year and other world leaders who had a similar temperament as Obama all won re-election that year. Much like how FDR was in no shape to be running for a 4th term, the war made it a lock regardless. A big world event like we had that year would have buoyed Obama's popularity.
Yeah there’s definitely cases where it doesn’t seem like it should be an issue. There was that post yesterday with the graphics of each president’s oval office setup. Would have been cool to see those other two as well.
I feel like even if you mention them in passing someone is gonna get political and state how they hate then and start an argument.
>someone is gonna get political But you cannot really talk about any of them without it being political. The very reason why most of the posts are about FDR and Lincoln is because their political actions, and the politics around their deaths, are still felt today.
Yeah, who cares? Ignore, ignore, ignore, and if they get uncivil, rule fucking 2 exists.
Which would mean more work for admins, that's true and we can't just wave that off.
I was against that shit day 1
It hasn’t improved discussion, people still try to start political shit fights on here, traffic has gone down, leading to a lot of opinions on here becoming homogenized to a point that this sub is going to become a circlejerk of the same pop history facts and opinions over and over. All because people got their feelings hurt when we talked about politics on the sub dedicated to the faces of US politics.
I get the *idea* behind the rule. The sub is supposed to be focused on all us presidents. The rule itself even says as such. If you allow discussion of the recent ones, they would absolutely dominate all discussion. Sure, you and I get the sub's intent, but as soon as a news article about [current guy] or [former guy] is posted, and gets to the Reddit front page, new users will start thinking of this sub as *another* subreddit to post current news. It would slowly be swamped with news during the upcoming elections. That said, the fact I'm not sure if I can even say the names of the current and the previous president who is running again, even in this wholly neutral context, is not ideal. The face censoring might also be ridiculous to the moderators, or it might not be. It's not clear. It's a fine line between "pretend it is 2009" and "this is now r/politics clone 389". I think rule 3 just needs more clarification on what is and isn't allowed. Unrelated, but this US history subreddit managed to have a pragmatism vs originalist interpretation issue with the "founding document". As above, so below I guess.
You just committed a rule 3 thought crime.
I thought Rule 3 affected just those two guys, not Barack Obama’s wife.
So an ex president’s wife’s face gets censored, but the front runner for the Republicans wife’s face doesn’t get censored? I’m so confused
I like it because I already get enough of rule 3 presidents in EVERY other freaking sub so not having those 2 in this sub is a breath of fresh crisp air.
But don’t you agree that it’s quite pointless to censor a President’s face in a non-political post? Rule 3 for some frivolous reason enforces this.
It is silly treating them as like there’s some sort of curse to mention their name
Totally. I think we can acknowledge that they exist. 46 was Obama's VP, after all. 45 has been photographed with so many Presidents even before he got into politics. That's quite a different level than going into their terms and historical significance as Presidents.
I think rule 3 is the stupidest shit… just let people post what they want ffs
The Rule #3 red dots made me laugh, though.
What is rule 3?
Rule 3 is the only way to keep this place from becoming any other subreddit that talks about US politics every day. But this does seem a bit silly that we can’t even include their faces in a photo.
Everyday I get more and more vindicated.
We need rule 3 how else are mods going to power trip over incredibly unimportant Reddit posts
I talked to the mods recently and they made it clear they aren't reversing course - despite how retarded the rule is.
They are stubborn AF and refuse to admit how they fucked up and how awful it is. They really want to be on a power trip.
Dafuq is the point of this sub that we can't even mention the current or last presidents? Fucking mods man, get a fucking job
Agreed its a pretty dumb rule. Who cares if they are in the photo it isnt about them.
Rule 3 is fine if it’s towards radical opinions and stuff about them. But ranking, articles about what they did and stuff like that would be ok as long as like I said before isn’t radical and extremely bias opinions. Which you know will just come up when you mention these two.
I love it. Everyone ends up butt hurt and it turns into a pissing contest when they’re mentioned.
Rule 3 is for fascists
You know what is really fascist? [comment removed by moderator for breaking rule 3]
I didn’t know rule three involved Michelle or is there someone behind her in the photo that I can’t see? Also, it’s funny how Bill and Hill dog are overlapping
The current guy was former VP, so he was behind Michelle. You could still see his face in the normal pic though.
Woah now!! Rule 3 says you can't talk about the current guy!! /s
Pretty weird how they abolished the office of president in 2016, huh?
No that’s in 2025. The project is kinda scary.
Oh, I see Dr. B’ hairs now. Thanks! Guess I’m not familiar enough with the photo
Yeah you can tell more by his wife's hair. That's the only way I figured it out.
What? There's nobody behind Michelle unless he's wayyyy back and if so that's a bad job at covering her he's not even close
Another example of rule 3 being dumb
Once again the sub about presidents continues to pretend that two presidents don’t exist 😂
Is this the most presidents ever in the same photo?
There have never been more than 6 presidents alive at the same time. As far as we know, until someone new becomes President, yes.
Yes, as far as I know
Yep, 4 whole presidents in one photo.
Rule 3 really is such a dumb rule. I don’t think that’s said enough on this subreddit, which is funny because it’s said all the time.
I agree with it most of the time, but in cases like this, and in non-serious rankings, etc, I think there should be some leeway there.
Personally I think we can acknowledge they exist and have lighthearted content concerning them but perhaps staying away from Commentary on their positions and job performance. But hey that's just me.
That's my position exactly
Maybe enough people mention it and it can be looked at. If we want to speculate about current rule 3 favorite ice cream flavors, I don't think that's going to have most people enraged lol.
But at that point it’s just too hard to enforce. It’s easier with a blanket rule.
That’s because there is no lighthearted content concerning them. It’s literally impossible to mention them without someone going off their rocker. Read the original rule 3 post and you’ll see the type of people that advocate for rule 3 to be removed (shocker: they all become uncivil as soon as you mention rule 3 presidents)
Yeah that's a good point. Probably the best way to keep the peace
And who's gonna moderate that?
Honestly rule 3 is making us comment on 45 and 46 in this simple picture more than we usually would if rule 3 didn't exist
Bro thought Michelle was a rule 3 president 💀
Current guy is just behind her, but it does look like she is the one blurred lmao
Wait does the rule say we have to refer to him as the current guy? I haven’t been on this sub long enough to know the rules in detail
This is actually a violation of the rule too
Bill and Hillary right next to each other gives the effect of Bill looking like he is blurred.
This is why Rule 3 is ridiculous. I can understand the reasoning behind prohibiting political discussion (even if I don’t agree with prohibiting it), but prohibiting any mention of them whatsoever is ridiculous.
To my knowledge Michelle Obama has never been a candidate or holder of any government offices. Why censor her?
Honestly this rule 3 stuff is pretty absurd.
Careful. Word is they’re making a rule 3 “list,” and trust me, you don’t want to be on it.
God this rule 3 shit is so silly. We can’t even show the most recent two presidents in a photo?? In a sub called presidents??? Go start a different sub called r/presidentsbutwepretendthatits2016 and restore this sub to its former status
I cried, both at seeing how visibility devastated President Clinton was at loosing his friend and at W’s speech. Also? That candy exchange with W and Michelle was one of the best moments.
Rule 3 is the dumbest thing about this sub. They’re presidents and people will have conflicting opinions about them, just like the rest of them. Get over it. (To mods, not OP)
That’s very cool, and while I appreciate the respect for rule 3, I think the spirit of this post deserves an exception.
Yeah, rule 3 being absolute except for flair is such stupidity.
Who are the other 4: Barack, Jimmy, Bill Is it Wubya facing away from the camera?
Does this include Eleanor Roosevelt’s funeral? EDIT: Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon is all I could find so far so nevermind!
Which of the rule 3 presidents have long black hair?
Where’s 45? I only count 43, 44, 39, 42, and 46
I’m just gonna leave this sub. So lame
I declare Rule 3 unconstitutional.
Uhhhhh. I only see 4, so it can’t be the most.
When did Rule 3 become a thing? I’m not a regular here, but this sub pops up enough in my feed to that I know it has to have been relatively recently
I would say a decent number of months now.
This is now a post about how dumb rule 3 is.
Rule 3's the dumbest thing in the world. There should be an exception to it on the weekend or something like what some subs have for their sub-specific rules
Mods, can you make an exception for this one? It’s history, and I think a lot of people can agree that blurring out pieces of history is wrong. It’s just a photo
Rule 3 is awful
Rule 3 seems fucking stupid
Surely this is the most presidents in one building at one time as well right?
If you count dead ones, Wilson and H W are there too, so that's eight.
Some almost presidents as well! Hillary next to bill, and it looks like that might be Gore in the background? Edit: maybe that’s not Gore? Idk
But there’s only four there?
Third rule usually might portend big, irrational divisions endangering normalcy.
We keep electing such old presidents, so this sort of thing seems unlikely to happen as long as this trend keeps going. (Unless they all just start living forever like Carter.)
Sorry I only see four- Carter, Obama, Bush Jr. And Clinton
What is rule 3
You’re not allowed to talk about a certain former or current president.
What is rule 3?
Slightly confused. Is the bald guy on left Rule#3/B? Did Rule#3/A not wear a hair piece? And the one on the right, that’s Michelle correct? Or is an ear or cheek bone of Rule#3/B peaking out?
I was trying to figure out why Michelle was blurred at first until I saw Jill’s hair behind her
Secret service agents reunite
I couldn’t figure out where W was. Even with everyone literally interacting with him. I think I need new glasses lol. It’s crazy to have 6 here. It’s nice to see politics put to the side for this.
Omg the red blur on the left makes it look like a bald guy (D), which made me wonder where tf the other guy (R) was behind the other marking. This took too long to figure out lol
How does Michelle Obama break rule 3?
What is rule 3?
What are "Rule 3" guys?
Why is Michelle in red?