this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2026
423 points (80.1% liked)

Political Memes

11592 readers
982 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
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So just to be clear, I don't hate you or anything, we're trying to achieve basically the same goal, we want the same thing. Our disagreement is just about what actions will most effectively bring it about. That's much better than the people who fundamentally want something different, so I want to be clear that I don't wish to characterize you as "essentially identical" to those actual enemy groups.

Anyways, from my understanding of the world, you voting for Kamala also disregards the effect on marginalized communities, its just marginalized communities of 2030-2080 and possibly onwards, rather than the communities of 2025-2030 which you are more directly affected by. That's the way I see it, at least. Its funny because really both the people who voted for Kamala and the people who don't are thinking to themselves: "this isn't how I really want things to go, but its a noble sacrifice to make for the greater good". I think the disagreement between the two groups truly comes down to complexities of which method will actually end up bringing about change. I leaned towards the choice I took, because when I look at the political history of this country since the 80s, it seems as though the Democrats have gone soft as representatives, which created that famous political ratchet effect.

I'm sorry, and I know this sounds like me just being lazy, but I truly do not believe putting in the leg work to change the party this way will matter. I know people who burnt literal years doing grassroots campaigning for truly progressive candidates and it went nowhere. I've been to more than a few of those types of events where everyone is trying to change the system the way it's supposed to be changed. But you know why those people never went any further? Because the party didn't need them to, because the party can get the votes they need AND have their donor cake too, because even many of the people in these grassroots campaigns will fall in line to vote for the normie candidate when the time comes and the Democrats know that. They know it because of the millions of dollars they spend to verify and ensure it for themselves.

So to me, since the "lift up opposing candidates" thing has been failing for 50 years, and the "blue no matter who" thing has been making things worse for 50 years, the only thing left to try is not voting. That's the one thing that might actually hit Democratic politicians where it hurts (their power/money). I know its not your strategy and you have every right to keep trying yours too, even though I think your strategy is part of the problem and you think the same about mine. I think the only way to come to a consensus is to debate why we expect one strategy to work better, and so far I feel like recent political history is clearly on my side. But I am interested in hearing counterarguments.

But everyone should understand that continually posting this Kamala shame stuff just makes people like me drastically less willing to hear those counterarguments, because it demonstrates how the people making them haven't even bothered to properly understand the nuance of our voting reasons, and instead prefer to strawman us as dumbly caring only about Middle Eastern genocides above all else.

[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

So it seems like we both think the other tact is ineffectual, because if progressives don't vote, then Democrats will simply court Republican voters instead which they are currently doing (multiple candidates have tried out throwing LGBTQ people under bus in the coming primary alread). They don't care about ideology, or even being in power. They just want to be able to cash checks from donors.

You need to inject new influence into the party, from my perspective your approach is harmful in both the short and long term.

Ideally we have a system that makes third parties viable, but we don't so we need to treat a faction within the democratic caucus as a third party and have them primary sitting candidates and influence policy until they have enough members to drive out the old guard. Actual progress is not immediately visible.