this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
1668 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7916 readers
2275 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I can’t control how other people vote, but the party’s can. That’s their job.

I knew the DNC fucked up when they tanked Bernie’s run.
And look what we got.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's insane that in my lifetime I've seen the Dem party at the point where they've completely given up on courting and just yell at people that they have to vote for them.

Like, who the fuck is coming up with this strategy, and why is anyone listening to them?

It just makes zero sense.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)

YOU DO HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM

THE OTHER OPTION IS LETTING FASCISM HAPPEN

WE HAVE FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS NOW ACTUALLY BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE, YES, GENUINELY, YOU DO ACTUALLY JUST HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM

GOOD PEOPLE DO NOT TO BE MADE TO BE EXCITED BY DOING THEIR DUTY TO PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

YOU DO ACTUALLY JUST HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM TO NOT BE AN AWFUL FUCKING HUMAN BEING WHO DESERVES SCORN FOR BEING FUCKING AWFUL

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

When you only have one choice, you don’t have a choice.

Yea obviously we’re at the point where the only non fascist choice is to vote for an unpopular incumbent, but it seems like the choice has been completely removed from the democratic process in the US and you have to wonder how much of it is exactly by design, and whose.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

It's by the design of the Democrats, though I think our current situation is an unintentional cascade effect.

It's the result of one of the oldest election strategies in the world that remains incredibly popular for one simple reason: it's easy and it works. "Vote for me because I'm not the other guy" is a much easier policy to convince people on than actually having any policies of your own.

For many years now Democrats all over the country have been funding the campaigns of the most unhinged and extremist of their opponents to set themselves up for an easy win - there was even a lady who wrote a book about her doing it, only to lose to that same extremist in the very next election.

And that's why we find ourselves in the situation that we're in. Because the Dems keep thinking that they can court some mythical moderate Republican voting block by propping extremists up as the nominees. But that doesn't exist because the Republicans have always been voting against Dems rather than for people they like. Republicans don't care if the nominee is Bush, Biden, Putin, or Stalin himself, risen from the grave to finally put an end to capitalism. So long as they have an R next to their name instead of a D, that's who they're voting for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

When you only have one choice, you don’t have a choice.

damn, never thought about it like that, but that's a pretty succinct way to put it

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But why are the uncharismatic conservative candidates the only other option when we know for a fact they're not what Dem voters want?

Why not run someone voters actually like and who will get the most votes?

Why don't you understand that gets the most votes for the Dem candidate?

Although I would like to thank you for not insulting me this time, we're making progress. Would all caps help you more? I know it's easier for some to read so I can do that if you're doing it so you can read easier.

Depending on what you're using you can make the text appear larger or a better font too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I notice you're doing your one sentence per paragraph again.

Ok let's go through this chronologically (not that I agree Biden is conservative, he's center).

Bill Clinton: When you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you run from the center. So that's what he did.

Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!

Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on vague "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.

Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!

On to Biden. Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center. 

And you're amazed that they don't run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.

So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Big caps with bold! Listen to meeeeee!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Maybe if y'all were capable of saying shit that didn't instantly wanna make me pull my hair out at the sheer, oh I dunno draw a fucking deadly sin out of a hat at this point, I wouldn't feel like y'all need the markdown equivalent of the gunnery sergeant hartman treatment to explain basic morals to you abject failures of human empathy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Naaah… a better strategy is to do absolutely nothing at all, suggest everyone do the same- and expect everything to magically change, right?

We don’t need to be courted. This isn’t a fucking love story. We don’t need a thing handsome and charming hero to swash buckles. We need an effective politician.

Everyone is always whining about Sanders all the time- he was NONE of those things. Ever.

It he is an effective politician.

So stop with the constant bullshit reasons to not vote. Especially this one. It’s probably the word you’ve come up with yet.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Tanked his run by counting all the votes not cast for him?

Why am I still surprised that people who need to be dragged kicking and screaming to generals, nevermind primaries think that people who don't need any convincing not voting for their guy for them is cheating?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

No, by obstructing his and his supporters efforts in key primaries, because the DNC knew they wanted Hillary for reasons.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is a rather unique thing you see on Lemmy I've noticed. I mean everyone knows the Democratic Party pulled some bullshit during that primary, but the delusions you see on Lemmy take it so much further. It honestly kind of reminds me of Lost Cause myths. It's very much in the same vein.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I have legit seen people suggest the very normal and totally socialist thing of counting individual donations instead of ballots as the only legitimate way to run the primary.

The socialists. Wanted to create a literal donor class. That is recognized in party procedures. Because they were that mad that working class black voters identified more with the southern lady than a darkhorse from Vermont who's not even a party member 99% of the time. Even after a bunch of white liberal arts majors talked at them about how he's totally down with the culture because he got arrested at a protest one time.