If we can't be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?
As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I've turned off reply notifications.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
Progressive here. I vote in every primary and try to rally support for the most progressive in my coalition. Come November, I vote against fascists which means voting for Democrats because they're obviously better in every way.
If you don't vote or vote third party, congratulations, it means you were duped by right-wing propaganda or don't understand how our election system works and the inevitable binary outcome that comes with FPTP and whole you didn't give fascists +2, you gave them +1.
This.
Not voting or voting for a third party hands a win to people you don't want winning. The system is not fair, at all -- but that doesn't mean we should operate in a way we know will lead to a bad outcome. We have plenty of evidence that third parties in the US don't really make a dent, but they do sway elections (and generally not how you want). The rest is idealism.
It's also a good example of why single-issue voting means you'll almost always get more collateral damage, even if you get representation you want on that specific issue.
Trouble is, sometimes voting for either of the two major parties hands a vote to people whom you don't want winning, and you know it will lead to a bad outcome: The march toward some flavor of authoritarianism has been obvious for decades. One major party welcomes it, and the other major party doesn't not welcome it. While the system isn't fair, neither is life, and sometimes the system itself is so flawed that it falls apart even if you play by its unfair rules.
So what was the plan? Democrats win every election forever and ever, amen? The party was cooperating with the Republicans, actively or passively, to put the pieces of an authoritarian system into place. Was that supposed to be fine because Democrats would always be in control of the machinery of repression? Despite the long history of U.S. voters ping-ponging between parties?
It is really sad you think you are right
You should try arguments next time
I am not prepared for the olympics level mental gymnastics necessary to explain participating in the US election system.
Don't worry. We know.
I can't remember who the fuck all is who in the first place, aside from the obvious culprits like Turnip.
Nominal aphasia sucks yo, how do people even have memory banks to remember all the politicians they've probably never met in the first place?
Well isn't that the beauty of it? "Vote blue no matter who."
It is easy to remember, you don't need names or complicated things like policies and stances....
No, that's not the beauty of it at all. In fact, I find it rather ugly, ignorant, and damn near caveman thinking style.
If I was to vote, it wouldn't be on a simple color, it would be on each candidates' values and goals. Sadly I can't remember every last candidate, so I do not consider myself a well educated potential voter.
But hey, if folks wanna keep voting on simple colors, well my favorite color is blue. So if it's so simple, why can't I just pick up a blue card, write my name and voter info on it, and just submit that?
All you really need to know is every red candidate is objectively a worse person and worse for America and the world than any blue candidate. That's not to say that the blues are particularly good, but if you have the choice of getting punch in the mouth or shot in the face, you choose to live another day.
I choose to not either get punched in the mouth nor shot in the face.
Sad, that at this rate, if these are the only two options left, then gimme a knife and I'll slit my own throat.
I do not care to live in a world where peace isn't an option, but thanks for laying out the terms of red/blue for me.
A choice to not participate is a choice to get shot in the face and to get others shot in the face as well. If you're okay with that, then that's on you and really tells what you stand for. It's not just a self choice, it's a selfish choice that directly hurts others.
Oh, so you think it's justified to shoot non-voters in the face?
I see your true personality now, you are not of peace, you are for war.
Well done, you've shown me your true colors.
Not at all, I never said anything about any violence being justified. I'm saying that not participating hurts others, not just you. I don't want anyone hurt, but there are two choices in the US general election, and one is always worse than the other for everyone but the wealthy.
Getting shot or punched was a metaphor. The point being that red is bad, blue is less bad, and choosing neither directly benefits the red. So long as there are racists, bigots, and other people that just hate demographics for no reason, the world won't be a place of peace. In all of history it never has been. We can get closer to peace by voting for people that aren't pedophiles and war mongers. Not participating in that effort is a choice you can make, you're and adult, and you have enough of the facts to make a semi informed choice. Nobody can make you, we can just help educate you on the pros and cons of these choices.
Well then you should watch your words, because I quote you directly..
You said.. "A choice to not participate is a choice to get shot in the face"
You're just further showing your true colors.
Do you know what a metaphor is?
I'd rather be the nice stranger on the side of the road helping you change your flat tire than to be thrown into the mix of blind color voting.
Even with that said, I'd still help you change your tire, whether you're red, blue, tan or brown.
That's just the sort of person I am.
And that's great. Ideally there would be more people with that mindset of helping others. As I mentioned this isn't blind color voting. You either support gay and trans rights, or you support Republicans. You support teachers and the poor, or you support Republicans. Take color out if the equation and take voting at its merits like it should be. It just so happens that all of the worst shit is Republican, so it's easy to know who to vote for if you have good ideals, which it sounds like you do.
If you want to help the most people possible, then it behooves you to vote blue, or do some spot research right before heading to the polls, which will ultimate lead you to the same conclusion.
Thank you, seriously thank you 👍
I still don't know how voting actually works, when it happens in my area, when it is, where it is, or how to even properly look all that up without AI slop answers now.
Are you serious? That's not a metaphor, that's a confusing run-on paragraph word salad, possibly AI itself.
I still choose peace over picking colored sides of a coin that both lead to war.
I just want a nice peaceful job helping fix things for people or businesses that don't want to see the world burn down.
Getting metaphorically punched in the mouth or metaphorically getting shot in the face. Neither are actual events, they are metaphors used to illustrate that one side is clearly worse than the other. I never said anyone deserves to get shot in the face. What I said that you quoted is that if you do nothing, you are choosing to support the worst option.
This isn't a colored sides thing. It's bad vs less bad. There is no third choice. If you choose nothing in means you've chosen bad because of the way a two party FPtP voting system works.
Most of us want peace. One way that you can help is voting for the least bad option, because either the bad or least bad is going to take power. There are obviously many other things you can do to help others like volunteering and donating. The most significant act though is helping prevent awful from being in power, because their actions will outweigh any individual efforts you are capable of.
Neither are metaphors for me, I've been abused more than I should say. Mostly punched, partly shot at with jammed guns..
Don't ever doubt someone that sees their life flash before their eyes everytime they sleep and dream, I'm literally not supposed to be alive today.
"I don't want to get hurt" isn't a choice and I have to assume you're like six years old if this is seriously the first time you've look at the way world politics work.
I dunno how world politics work at all.
I never have, I don't care to participate in the sport of war, I prefer peace.
But, what did you just say?
'I don't want to get hurt isn't a choice'?
What the fuck was that, you promoting violence?
You should probably just stay out of the conversation then and educate yourself.
Well thank you too, I'm actually here attempting to learn right now.
Like, do you really go to vote with the caveman mind of voting for color red/blue? You might as well be voting for tan/brown, same fucking difference, blind voting.
Name me one Republican that doesn't support fascism.
Again, I'm piss poor with names of people I've never spoken with in person. I keep seeing bullshit about this dude Pete H whatever the fuck online, but I don't know anything about him, whether it's all just trash memes, whatever his real values are, or what side he's on.
Can you not understand that I'm bad with names, I literally know that, I know I have trouble remembering such things, and make my own best educated decision to like not vote when I can't remember such shit the next day?
Em dash, AI profile pic... Hmmm...
Looks like a double dash -- to me, not M
Fair enough, I assumed LLMs used the markdown double dash for their em dash, mixed with the AI profile pic, and general bad taste of a slop comment, I judged too quickly.
There are (rare though they may be) people like me who actually know the ALT code for em-dash by heart and have used it for years long before AI. Thanks to people now just assuming I've switched to double-dashes mostly.
The compose key exists, too (and wincompose for Windows users) — makes it easy to use. And all sorts of other symbols like ¿Por qué no los dos? and I can uſe the old long-'s' character eaſily… (and that's a real ellipsis)
You're welcome to respond to the "slop comment" if you can actually come up with something substantive. Otherwise, it's not a good look.
I've gotten more down votes saying exactly this.
In 2020 Biden won with 81.3 million votes. In 2024 Trump won with 77.3 million votes. All we had to do to avoid the mess we are in is turn out with the same "enthusiasm" we had for Biden in 2020.
It's the job of a politician to generate that enthusiasm.
I would argue that it is the civic duty of a citizen to vote. Enthusiasm is irrelevant.
I fucking loathe this mindset. I mean I hate it with such a passion. Cuz all you're saying is you don't care if you lose. You don't care if the worst happens to all of us you'd rather not change your ways. Cause guess what? You're wrong.
You can say that until the cows come home but people turn out to vote when they're spoken to and engaged. Thinking anything else means you're okay with losing. And I resent the fuck out of my life being put in jeopardy because some of you are okay with losing.
I agree with this, but that doesn't convince people to actually turn out and vote.
A politician needs to be able to generate enthusiasm to get people to vote
We simply know that people are more likely to vote when they are enthusiastic. You can either keep telling people "do better" and keep losing, or you can accept human nature and use it to your advantage by running a candidate that people actually want.
People should have been planty enthusiastic to get anyone but Trump as President, but that shows how strong the misinformation machine is.
Personally I've always favored a system like Australia where voting is compulsory and punished with a small fine. That filters out the principled from the merely lazy.
Yes, but they do that only when they want you to vote. Imagine making it compulsory to vote, and then also suppressing your ability to vote... Then the fine is just a new tax and you still don't get to vote.
You're not wrong, but they sure didn't make it easy.
I agree with this strategy but I think you have to also concede that anti-electoralists have some good arguments too. Since voting is relatively low investment, my personal view is that it's best to pursue a variety of strategies. But for the vast majority of Americans for whom voting is their only political activity, I would challenge them to figure out what the next step is in becoming a more effective political actor. Frankly, there are a variety of actions a person can take that are way more impactful than voting. And this moment demands more from us than passive participation.
In 2000, Nader won 1.64% of the popular vote in Florida.
If less than 1% of the Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won Florida, become president, and who knows what timeline we'd be living in today.
If your favorite candidate is polling in single digits ahead of election day, maybe... just maybe... you should consider which of the actually viable candidates you want to win and vote accordingly.
If you vote Democrat just because they were better than Conservatives, congratulations, it means you were duped by the establishment or don’t understand how your election system works and the inevitable binary outcome that comes with always doing the same shit over and over again and believing something will somehow change eventually.
There are literal fascists in office, in part because Dunning-Kruger told you not voting or voting for a no-chance candidate was a good idea.
Or maybe you think posting online is "action" or "protest". In case you haven't noticed, it does jack shit.