this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
319 points (78.9% liked)

Political Memes

11571 readers
2166 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

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

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) 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
[–] SooperGoose@thelemmy.club 26 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions. Seriously, get over yourself. The entire reason we're in this mess is because of the two party system putting people against eachother instead of the greedy villains surviving the life out of the country. Stop being weak and giving in to the lesser evil. Compromising with harm only brings about more harm.

In conclusion, fuck you.

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

No fuck you, how would compromising and voting for the lesser harm have been worse than what we have now?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

They will blame third parties, meanwhile 6 million of THEM couldn't even be bothered to vote.

it's never their fault, all the way down

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago

Blaming anyone that voted third party is one of the most tiresome, braindead, selfish opinions.

It's also mathematically ignorant. If Harris received every single third party vote excluding RFK Jr's, even if you include Libertarians who are more right-leaning, she still would've lost.

[–] Dalkor@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It doesn't matter who you voted for, neither group is putting the effort needed to protest and shut what the government is doing down. All parties are culpable to what is going on.

Im no different, I'm also guilty of this, but I recognize I need to do more and I'm trying.

Feeling righteous and indignant on the internet moves progress backwards and allows the bots to win.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

Here’s the thing, in the reality that existed in November 2024, there were only 4 choices. 1) Vote for Trump, 2) vote for Harris, 3) vote 3rd party, or 4) don’t vote at all.

Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.

Argue all you want about the two party system being terrible, the distribution of Electoral College votes per capita over states being wrong, the impact of freezing the House seat numbers, or anything else related HAS NO IMPACT on the general election.

For the record, I hate all of the items I mentioned above, but NONE of that mattered come November.

Anyone disputing this is either a disinformation psyop/bot, a champion of a US downfall, or a complete moron.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Do better next time when choosing a candidate.

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Good on you for breaking this down to a fifth grader level. Problem is most people here don't seem to have that level of comprehension.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Anyone who thinks they can debate voters into voting for someone they don't like after saying all that is also a complete moron. I would never question your intelligence so I assume this is simply to feel better about the situation.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

It's a democracy, until it isn't.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

My point is that anyone who says they didn’t like Harris when she was literally the only viable choice come the general elections must therefore be totally fine with Trump, because that’s what the actual effect of their decision was.

All of this idealistic backwards reasoning they are using to somehow absolve themselves from having fucking Trump as the president is just foolishness.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Or may be the democratic leadership was totally fine knowing well and good that Harris or Biden has good chance of losing and they still fronted her. All of this money motivated selfishness of Democratic establishment just piles on top of having Trumps president. They should have fronted AoC or Bernie very early on.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Simple math and logic dictate that at that point in time ANY ACTION other than voting for Harris was supporting Trump.

Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris.

Did I also vote Marianne Williamson, Cenk Uygur, and Cornell West by voting for Jill Stein? Or just Trump and Harris? I'm trying to figure out the limits to this new infinite-voting glitch we discovered together.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

No because 1) he won so any votes not going directly to him didn’t matter in the end, and 2) Republicans tend to fall in line and vote R no matter what versus idealistic leftists and accelerationists who won’t vote for anyone unless they 100% align with their views, and interesting that the hard line for them is Gaza, not any of the other catastrophic outcomes from the Trump presidency. Almost like these were disingenuous arguments to begin with.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Next time push for a better candidate with some morals instead of a sad compromise that lacks any moral integrity like Harris or Biden. I think, people like you are a giant problem who are very flexible with their moral systems as long as it doesn't directly hurt you. Reminds me of the poem:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

People like you don't care until they come for you. May be speak up when they front people like immoral Biden or Harris.

[–] insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Logically, it must then follow that ANY ACTION other than voting for Trump was supporting Harris

Yes, from the perspective of those who saw Harris as the worst outcome (cue clip of the "apparently I'm an idiot" lady).

For the others, not really no. Sure a coin flip could technically land on the edge, but in real-world conditions it's even less likely to be called that way.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 points 12 hours ago

don't expect them to accept logic.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You're an act utilitarian. Rule utilitarians disagree with you. Yours is not the only ethical system, and it's the height of hubris and arrogance to pretend that only your moral system is valid.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

What moral system throws millions of vulnerable people under the bus so you can brag about how tall your horse is?

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You should have talked about Morals when they fronted Biden who got not morals.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We did, loudly. it didn't matter for shit.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Clearly not enough

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world -2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

Try not to ask such loaded questions. You're better than that. I know you can do better.

Again, act utilitarianism vs rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is what our laws use. You're using act utilitarianism, which has a much poorer track record. A rule utilitarian would say, "we need a hard and fast rule that genocide is wrong. Anyone who supports genocide is a criminal that deserves zero support and respect. This rule creates the greatest good for the greatest number over time." An act utilitarian says, "this genocide may be OK, if it's the lesser evil. If I can convince myself it's on net positive, then it's the moral thing to do."

Our laws use rule utilitarianism. You're not allowed to argue in court that murdering a guy was a net positive to the world. We instead say, "banning all murders will result in the greatest good for the greatest number, so we'll outlaw all murders."

You can have two systems that each try to optimize for the greatest good to the greatest number. Rule utilitarians create bright rules that on net, over time, result in the greatest good for the greatest number and avoid the temptation to justify horrible acts by arguing for the greater good. Act utilitarians try to judge each act individually, ignoring a lot of the context and pretending that this act exists in complete isolation from all acts before and after.

Act utilitarianism is literally the moral philosophy of the Holocaust.

[–] Jay101@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The apt poem for them

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Ours laws as written maybe, but certainly not in practice. How can you argue that the outcome of our laws show any adherence to rule utilitarianism?

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 3 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

First past the post creating a two party system is a result of math. You might as well complain about Pi would be easier to remember if Pi=3.0 . Math doesn't care about your feelings.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The US electoral system is not a universal constant. It is not pi or the speed of light. It is a system by which rich people maintain control over a declining imperial power, based on a document written by slave owners 250 years ago as part of a tax dodging scheme.

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

but but but Russia!!! China!!!

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

thats a good point. pi being 3.14159 is bullshit and I've had enough of it.