this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
410 points (99.3% liked)

Political Memes

11411 readers
1608 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
 
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

It gets better:

Kharg island, that place we bombed, to soften up for a Marine invasion?

Not even visible in that image.

Because its further up north, practically all the way up the Gulf, to Iraq.

So... we're gonna... do an ambibious invasion... that requires the amphib landers... to go through the Strait of Hormuz...

Which is the thing that we currently cannot secure to the point of being able to guarantee safe passage through.

...

It is such a ludicrously stupid plan that if it were anyone but Trump and Hegseth in charge, I would say it is a laughably obvious false attack / psyop diversion.

But, they are in charge, so... it might essentially be an intentional Gallipoli, to serve as a rallying cry, after a bunch of Marines get killed.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 points 15 minutes ago

They'll bully countries into letting them cross over from the other side.

Let us use your country to launch attacks or we'll cripple you economically.

[–] IndieGoblin@lemmy.4d2.org 1 points 2 minutes ago

Who is saying this is unfair? People are really fighting ghosts here

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

reminds me of a discussion I had on Reddit, they said that houtties blocking traffic to/from Israel was inhumane, as some cargo included food and medicine...

but he had absolutely no comment on Israel's decades long blockade on Gaza that was causing a mass starvation.

I really hope those redditors stay there

[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

Bully logic

[–] untorquer@quokk.au 4 points 1 hour ago

Why doesn't Cuba just build a canal through Panama?

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

We are way beyond the point where it makes sense to call them out on hypocrisy.

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 4 points 2 hours ago

Oh wait I'm like the tenth person with this comment. 🤡

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

Yes. If you haven't been paying attention, this has always how conservatives operate.

[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Idk why people keep thinking that pointing out this "hypocrisy" is clever. The current government is operating from an exceptionalist standpoint. Many people believe America is anointed by God, the agent of good and right. Others simply believe in the law of self-interest.

Either way, (I can feel the downvotes coming now), this isn't really hypocritical behavior by any means. This is like criticizing a sports team: "Wait, so it's good for YOU to get the ball in the basket, but it's bad for THEM to get the ball in the basket?". The people who approve of America's behaviour do not see other countries and people as being on the same team, and while that may be stupid, it isn't hypocritical. Imagine someone saying this about you with some instsnce of yourself being self-interested.

"Oh, so when you get a promotion it's a reason to party, but when that lying asshole in your department gets the promotion instead of you, now suddenly you feel upset? Hypocrite!"

That's not hypocrisy. That's just you believing that you deserve the promotion and believing that the other guy doesn't. Now, if you don't actually deserve the promotion, that still makes you wrong, but not via hypocrisy.

Its important to understand this distinction because all these "hypocrisy" call outs from the left ring so hollow even to many people on the left, and they certainly won't wake up or bother anyone on the right, because they're fundamentally missing the point.

The problem isn't that America coherently pursued its interests by wanting a passage opened for it in one place, and pursues its interests by wanting a passage closed in another place.... The problem is that those things are not actually in America's interests, or that they are selfish and disregard other innocent people, etc.

[–] ppue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

But the post talks about "fair" vs. "unfair" not "good" vs "bad". And if you want to say an Action is fair for us but unfair for them, you would need additional rules to distinguish between the Actions in respect to the Actors. Otherwise, it would indeed be hypocrisy. (Not that it matters too much, this is not sports.)

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is like criticizing a sports team: “Wait, so it’s good for YOU to get the ball in the basket, but it’s bad for THEM to get the ball in the basket?”.

This is an extremely Trump-like view, that foreign policy is a zero-sum game with a winner and a loser, and the object is to win.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

It's a distinctly American view. Other countries do look at making deals where the benefit is mutual.

Our foreign policy, specifically over the last 40 years, has been vulgarly in service to the Epstein Class and their business interests, and we saw this backed up in Jeff's own emails. It was a feature of both our wars and the manner in which we wielded soft power. The only real difference here is tactics and presentation, and if Donald were willing to make nice speeches like his predecessors, people would care significantly less, I think.

That said, there is some legit hypocrisy here. In his first term, Donald did distinguish himself in disentangling the US from several foreign wars and his reticence to start others. (Most notably Syria and Afghanistan.) He also campaigned on doing so again, even beginning office by establishing a ceasefire in Gaza.

But then he needed people to stop asking questions about his likely pedophilia.

100% agree on the social media posts though. No one gives a shit about the supposed hypocrisy, on the left or the right. Hell, they didn't call the last guy Genocide Joe for no reason.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 hours ago

All true but highlighting the hypocrisy is useful in changing changeable minds. I do believe that the unchangeable mind are a large minority. I think there's a lot of people who believe what they do because they've never heard anything but exceptionalist propaganda since birth.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Fair points all around.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 20 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Thank God someone finally pointed out the hypocrisy of MAGA.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I think they're beyond hypocrisy.

They are at war with truth, reality, and civility. These things are only important if they are currently working in their favor. Acting in bad faith seems to be their default. All that matters is that they get their way. The ends always justify the means unless it looks like something might hinder their ability to get their way in the future... and they are usually confident that they'll find a workaround later and do that thing anyway.

Is there even a word for such brazen, naked duplicity?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 7 points 7 hours ago

Is there even a word for such brazen, naked duplicity?

Fascism.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 10 points 7 hours ago

Now you're thinking with American Exceptionalism!

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

We just need to rename the Gulf of Oman to the Gulf of America. Problem solved.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

All gulfs are America now!

Aka all your gulfs belong to us.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That is the reason European countries do not block Russian oil exports. There are sanctions and if there is any chance of stoping a ship in line with international law is being used. However it is not a full blockade.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

What the US is doing to Cuba is not a "blockade" either, in the dictionary definition. The US is just sanctioning the shit out of anybody who sells oil to Cuba. Which is evil, but legal under international law.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I am not sure about legal as it is causing civilian death. It is a grey area and in violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. Of course no one is really enforcing these against the US sooo...

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

America is the world police and that means everything they do is legal.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

So the US embargo against Cuba is evil. But I think it is actually legal, according to international law. Because it is not a "blockade", but instead just sanctioning the shit out of anybody who sells oil to Cuba. Which is evil, but legal under international law.

Again, legal is not the same as moral.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Legal or not in relation to international law and the US is an academic distinction. Laws don't apply.

[–] solidheron@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

They said DAMN THE IS BECAME A CUBA