this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025

325 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

7936 readers

2503 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

[email protected]

325

Hot take coming through (lemmynsfw.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Something something leftist infighting

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 81 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I've said it before elsewhere but it needs to be heard...

It's just wild to me continually seeing posts not understanding how this all works, and how it would play out. It's like the people who thought China paid the tariffs...

The house is almost tied. That's who passes bills, handles impeachments, some of the most powerful committees are, and who impeaches Presidents...

218 Republicans, 213 Democrats.

Let's see, take New York for example.

26 representatives total, 19 Democrat and 7 Republican.

5 of those were within 2 points last time their seat was up.

People who think that New York is blue, their vote doesn't matter, skips the votes for the House and Senate and end up losing a Blue house seat but later complain that nothing changes are literally the fucking problem.

Every. Fucking. State. Is. Like. This.

Apathetic morons who don't realize that the president is only held accountable by the other branch of government then wave their hands around when they did jack shit to help put people in place to, are the fucking problem.

District 3 of California was lost by 24,000 votes. District 22 was lost by 3,000.

Those two seats in the house, along with the close ones in New York, Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Washington, hell every state... Are what makes the House of Representatives or breaks it.

So, if you think that your vote for president doesn't matter, so you skip voting and let these other seats slip, yes, you're a fucking moron who can't grasp basic concepts of government that are taught in 4th grade.

And don't get me started on the State House/Senates, how they define voting laws and voting zones and engage in gerrymandering.

Every fucking vote counts.

And until the country realizes it, and starts acting on it, we'll keep getting the shit we deserve.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Apathetic morons who don't realize that the president is only held accountable by the other branch of government

Maybe this was a typo, but there are actually 3 branches of government, and we're already in a constitutional crisis between the first and third

For retaking a chamber of congress to be significant in the fight against fascism it has to actually be functioning. If they were to impeach and convict (60 votes in the Senate and they currently only have 47), Trump could just say 'no' like he did to the SC. Even if they convicted and Trump didn't just say 'I ain't fucking leavin', a third of the country is still rabidly supportive of him. That'll impact who even can win seats in congress, and they would probably burn the national mall down this time

Libs need to get past their inability to see how the system has completely fallen apart.

History never ended, we should stop pretending like it did.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Surely the way to fix this broken system is to participate in it harder

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When one of the flaws is that it's designed to only function as advertised if there's full participation, participating harder can make things less bad, and participating less can make things worse.

Either way, it's much easier to convince people to go out and vote than it is to convince them to take up arms in a revolution, kill their opponents, and risk being killed or imprisoned as a consequence. If your revolutionary faction can't gather enough people to win an election, then it doesn't have enough support to win a civil war without getting the police and military on its side, and that's not going to happen in the US.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

it’s designed to only function as advertised if there’s full participation

Uh, what? Are you forgetting that suffrage was originally limited to land-owning men?

It was never designed for full participation - universal suffrage has been repeatedly rejected in favor of 'compromised' exclusions since our founding.

Our system has been quite literally designed to prevent full participation, idk where this idea comes from that full participation is somehow the true spirit of american democracy.

Either way, it’s much easier to convince people to go out and vote than it is to convince them to take up arms in a revolution, kill their opponents, and risk being killed or imprisoned as a consequence

It's not an exaggeration to say that basically every bit of progress for labor and democratic rights in the US has been won by violent struggle, and it's never been by a 'majority' of voters.

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

I think you've misunderstood a lot of my comment.

The US' democracy is advertised as giving the population what they want, but it's designed so that it doesn't give the population what they want unless everyone votes and does so in their best interests, and it's also designed so that lots of people don't vote and if they do, they vote against their interests. That way, there's the illusion of giving people what they want so they don't revolt, but powerful people have their interests prioritised.

Because the system has to have an illusion of working in normal people's interests, it's got a failure mode where it starts approximating working in people's interests when more people vote and more people engage enough to know which options on the ballot are closest to being in their interests.

I'm not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system's 'broken' is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does.

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

I’m not saying that magically getting everyone to know who they should vote for and then show up to the polls is feasible, just that refusing to participate because the system’s ‘broken’ is what the system wants and how it makes sure it keeps doing the things it does

Making it difficult to vote is a reason it's designed to fail, but it's very possibly the least impactful.

Even if everyone participates, there are still dozens of ways in which capital restricts the options/neuters governance against the interests of the working class. Historically, it has almost never been turnout that drives progress, but dedicated, persistent, and quite often violent action by a relatively small number of actors. Nearly all of our basic labor rights came not from the working-class voter turnout but by armed protest and seizure of capital and infrastructure. Even when representation overwhelmingly 'supports' reform, the pressures of capital dis-incentivize regulation if they can avoid it (else they catch the blowback from unhappy capitalists, who quite literally control the nation's productive capacity and resources) - it isn't until the working class shows their willingness to disrupt the flow of profit that true progress is made.

I understood your whole comment, but my point isn't event just that our system is designed to prevent participation, it's also designed to prevent populist movements from making progress to begin with. "The system doesn't want you to participate" is only a very small part of the story - it also does not need to listen to the popular will unless it's backed by an implicit threat of violence.

I'm not even telling you not to vote, just that voting alone will never be enough, not even with total participation - especially when we have already reached the point in capitalist decay where fascism has taken control of governance. You cannot vote your way out of fascism, and the sooner people realize this the sooner people will stop being content with merely voting.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None of that takes anything away from my original point that participating more can make things less bad. I never even said that violent action was distinct from participation, just that it's not the easiest form of participation to convince people to do, and that attempting a revolution (which is a huge step up from bombing a few factories and assassinating a few CEOs) won't go well if it's not got broad popular support or police and military backing. I've had enough arguments with tankies who insisted that it was easy to overthrow a capitalist state with twelve guys who believed hard enough in communism to magically generate an army, and there was no point in any other form of participation, that the thread looked to me like it might be about to summon the never vote, just wait for a revolutionary communist army to form people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

and that attempting a revolution (which is a huge step up from bombing a few factories and assassinating a few CEOs) won’t go well if it’s not got broad popular support or police and military backing.

I don't know a single anarchist that has ever advocated for an organized revolution, i'm not sure why you're harping on that. Violent disruption of capitalist systems is the violence I'm talking about, and it requires far fewer people to pose that very real threat to liberal democracy than it does for "complete participation" in the democratic process (wtf does this even mean if not voting? if democracy fails if even a single person doesn't 'participate' then democracy itself is a failed concept). When the democratic system fails to produce representation for working-class interests, it is the only form of participation left.

The liberals here who keep saying shit like "well if everyone voted we wouldn't be in this situation" have completely missed the point. If the opposition party had offered any real representation of working class interests to begin with then you wouldn't have had to be here in the replies defending them at all.

It's fine, though. As always, civil activists will drag the democratic party kicking and screaming toward progress, regardless of the constant whinging from liberals.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for taking the time to type this out. I wish the people who needed to read and turn it over in their head were willing and able.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

It's time for reapportionment.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Can we at least agree that the US's flawed first-past-the-post voting system is THE root cause of people having to vote for the lesser of two evils in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

One thing someone told me that I think is important: Trump (or whoever is actually running things) probably wants violent protests. That way, he can label everyone refusing a facist takeover as a terrorist and have them sent to El Salvador. He's toyed with the idea, so it's not absurd.

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

Both Stephen Miller and Jeffrey Clark have been saying that. They’re two of trumps top aides. Is something the have publicly stated they want the admin to do. First they said it for the southern border but they’ve also said protests like BLM should be enough to trigger the insurrection act.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Simultaneously, while I don't believe US citizens stand a single chance in hell against the full US military and law enforcement, I also don't really believe his regime and supporters are capable of quelling a real uprising so I'm not really an advocate for or against it unless elections actually aren't held.

I also see this from the perspective that other nation's electoral systems are in much worse shape than the US currently.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I want peaceful and lawful change. I'm open to other means.

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

i will work for peaceful change but i won't fight against my own allies

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Don’t mistake your own countrymen for categorical allies

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

oh of course not

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (6 children)

If you have an enemy that's trying to eradicate you, your choices at either to allow them to eradicate you, or to eradicate them first. Any middle ground will just bring you back to the same position you started in.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago

Remember that foreign agitators, above any political slant, would prefer that the US be unstable and collapsing upon itself. They will play any and conflicting sides to this end. I have to remember that every time a 1-week old account claiming to be a Brit or Canadian tries shaming Americans into buying a rifle and shooting federal agents right fucking now.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (4 children)

All the other bullshit aside, this isn't a hot take. This is the majority opinion on lemmy.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I am not an extreme leftist, as I hate gun control laws.

I don't know shit about the Middle East and don't want to know.

I think peaceful protests are a thing of the past. It's time for hateful protests. MAGA are the fucking enemy, and we are an occupied nation ... act like it. Sabotage MAGA effirts, disrupt them, infiltrate their echo chamber, but most importantly hurt them financially and make them cry like Elon Musk.

You can't topple Trump, he got elected ... it's done. These udiots need to stop issuing court orders on him, it wont do anything. Go after his street level goons and work up. Follow ICE around ... they get nervous when you do that. Why? They are just glorified TSA agents.

We will not vote our way out of this. Someone is eventually going to get brave and take 47 down... legally (of course).

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

I am not an extreme leftist, as I hate gun control laws.

If you go far left enough, you get your guns back.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary

-Karl Marx

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Have you guys tried begging president Xi to save you? After all the color revolutions america has funded it would be hella funny for america to be saved by a color revolution.

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

This comment simultaneously supports Chinese arming US Insurrectionists and also implies that US arming of insurrectionists was positive, which is a rare mix of violent imperial rhetoric aligned with both sides.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Buy a gun safe.

Put books in it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

if you voted for kamala we probably wouldn't be one protest away from martial law and natural born citizens in gulags

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I am all for violent revolution. There comes a point where violence is the only answer left to us, and we are at that point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

On the other hand, Portugal.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not familiar with the history of Porgual. Can you explain why that's relevant to this? or possibly link to something that would help explain?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Honestly, I undefstand why he might have wanted to kill that CEO, but he is still a murderer, so the last thing that anyone should do is to support him and his murder. This betrays a lack of morality.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (28 children)

I fully agree that whoever murdered that CEO should be charged and face trial by jury.

That being said, if I was on the jury, based on my current knowledge and understanding, I would not be able to recommend a guilty verdict.

If we are going to live within the framework we've built, the system must have integrity and so he should face trial. But the system and framework was never meant to be apart from humanity, so the difficult nuances of human reality should be present in the verdict.

load more comments (28 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not murder if you're defending someone, this was a defense of countless against a mass murderer who planned to continue killing without remorse

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I am glad communists have started to feel so strongly about mass murder, but this man hardly was the sole reason his healthcare company chose this policy, and as far as I understand other companies did similar things. You are blaming an individual for institutional issues. While he is, obviously, evil, he is not, clearly, the cause of these policies. If he was not willing to implement them he would be removed.

But this is hardly relevant, this is, from a legal standpoint, murder, and thank God it is, since no sensible person would want to live in a society where someone can just murder anyone because of ideological convictions and political goals.

But from a moral standpoint this is, of course, still murder. We denounce the use of the capital punishment on the most horrible criminals, but when a CEO is murdered on the street, without trial, suddenly death is perfectly fine as a punishment. This is not self defense. This is not "defense" of anything. This is murder. And Luigi is a criminal, and I hope he realises the gravity of what he has done.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

but this man hardly was the sole reason his healthcare company chose this policy

He was proud of it and could've done anything to prevent it. This company leads in false denials over all others.

You are blaming an individual for institutional issues

An individual at the top of an institution that does it with literally no remorse.

If he was not willing to implement them he would be removed.

Then get removed and work in another industry.

But this is hardly relevant, this is, from a legal standpoint, murder, and thank God it is, since no sensible person would want to live in a society where someone can just murder anyone because of ideological convictions and political goals.

No, in a sensible society what he's doing would legally be murder, so, we wouldn't have to do anything like this in the first place.

But from a moral standpoint this is, of course, still murder.

Justified murder, an act of defense of others.

We denounce the use of the capital punishment on the most horrible criminals, but when a CEO is murdered on the street, without trial, suddenly death is perfectly fine as a punishment.

He's one of the worst possible criminals and deserved the death penalty. This country just doesn't believe that mass murder is wrong as long as you're making money off of it.

This is not “defense” of anything.

It's a rejection of the notion that these CEO's aren't mass-murderers. They are, vigilante justice had to happen because there was no justice happening elsewise. If the courts were planning on doing anything, planning on doing a trial against this obvious murderer, then you'd have a point.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments