The trick is you still need to protest against the government you voted for.
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
55 points (74.8% liked)
Flippanarchy
2797 readers
273 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Vote anyway.
Yes, they suck. They suck a lot less than Trump and the Republican party though, and in a choice between two you absolutely should be voting for the less shit choice.
I'll remind that a vote for anyone doesn't prevent you from taking other actions. Considering the way that this administration has gone so far, not voting might drastically limit other actions that can be taken.
From best option in voting to worst:
- Voting for a good candidate
- Voting for a better candidate than you have
- Voting for the least shit choice
- Not voting
- Voting for the worst possible choice
My options will not be great in all races, but you can damn well bet I'll be voting.
I'll also note that they wouldn't be working so hard to try and take away peoples right to vote if they didn't think it risked their plans.
Please, put their plans at risk. Take every path to a better option.
load more comments
(33 replies)
Harm reduction still demands that you vote for the lesser of two evils in a two party system, unless you want to be just as culpable as the Democrats for doing the easiest fucking thing you can do to not literally empower Nazis.
load more comments
(5 replies)
It’s always the same. Like dems had power under Biden, no changes made. “Change takes time” ok why can trump do change overnight?
Oh yea, it’s because in general the dems don’t actually want change, they’re happy with the way most of the system works.
Like dems had power under Biden, no changes made
Eh, not really. Kinda for the first 2 years, but that included people like Manchin, Sinema, Golden from Maine (the only one to vote against the Floyd Justice in Policing Act and the Covid19 stimulus), along with Gottheimer, Schrader, Costa, Case, Murphy, Rice, Vela, Bordeaux, and Cueller who were the most right leaning of the bunch in the house, pretty much all members of the shitheels known as the Blue Dog Coalition.
That last group is why the tax hikes for the wealthy and capital gains increases didn't go through. Along with a lot of the infrastructure bill getting yoinked and drug pricing reform bill getting reduced down.
they always have just enough manchins to never have to do anything good
15 years as a Senator made it really easy to have that Manchin, yes.
Almost like you need to deal with Manchin before he's back on the ballot again through a primary.
I know, its crazy stuff. Very complicated.
when it wasnt manchin, it was lieberman or whoever. somehow, magically, there's always just enough of them at any given time
Buddy, I'm old enough to remember when Obama had 60 votes in the Senate while they were doing Obamacare. The vaunted public option, we were told, was a non-starter, because we only had 55 or so votes in support of it.
Then, a while later, they decided to do it via reconciliation, so they would only need 51 votes. But! The public option was still a no-go, because we only had like 48 or so votes in support of it. The other 7, we were told, still supported the public option--but not via reconciliation.
This is how the Democrats operate, and why voting for them never achieves anything meaningful: they are lying to you about what policies they support.
So am I.
Lieberman, Nelson, Conrad, Carper, Lincoln and Baucus iirc were the problems.
Who were the consistent problems at the time.
This is how the Democrats operate, and why voting for them never achieves anything meaningful: they are lying to you about what policies they support.
I think you are misunderstanding what I said.
I'm saying the "kinda" had a majority.
At no point did I say I think Democrats are what I want or think they have policies I want.
Do they have policies I prefer over the Republicans? Yes.
Are they a better option than the republicans right now? Also yes.
Are they who I want in a government I want? Absolutely the fuck not.
These are different things, dont confuse them.
In liberal democracy money is power. The parties are different, but Democrats and Republicans are funded by the similar sources.
Eh, they did convict him of dozens of felonies, though. Didn't matter. The supposedly tough on crime party elected a felon.
The people actively making the world a worse place to live in for everyone are the ones who benefit by people not voting out of protest. They aren't going to stop if Americans sit by and leave them in power, so wouldn't the better option be to vote out the jokers who are in and make the powers that be bribe new politicians? At least make them work.
If left in power, the ones not getting voted out will mistake complacency for capitulation and consent and both for support of what they are doing. And, they won't be entirely wrong if the people don't do what's in their power and within the law to do.
Voting has a relatively low individual cost even if the power from the wealthy remains intact. Americans can slow down the decline of liberal democracy by making political races more expensive. In the end, voting is like throwing a chair in front of Michael Myers. He is still going to stab you, but you can slow him down. Voting against incumbents is a civic duty.
In the meantime, take care of those around you. Create some horizontal power by building community. Maybe get some cardio, growing and preparing food, securing water, outdoor skills and marksmanship.
They aren't even threatening to imprison Trump or the nazi party for their crimes anymore. They aren't using their power to inspect ICE facilities or making a coordinated, public effort to document all the crimes. There are over 250 Dem reps in Washington and most of them are silent, taking the extended leave the nazi party granted; occasionally virtue signaling on the nazi xitter platform; settling into the kleptocracy and taking part in the corruption, the same as the Dem majority always has.
Voting for right wing Democrats encourages the behavior.
The two party system is entirely corrupt. Two sides of the same coin. Two faced.
I live in a country with many parties. It's still the same. And I've seen or heard of countries with only one party, even worse. It doesn't matter the number of parties, the rich and powerful will rule over us until the power is kept by the people, within the people, and people alone, without giving any of it away to any 'leader'.
view more: next ›