1910
Just a reminder (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ekZepp@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

But hey, some rando with literally no national attention is polling at 3% in a couple of safely blue states, so definitely don’t vote for GeNoCiDe JoE! /s

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 25 points 5 months ago
[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:

  • a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist
  • an accelerationist
  • a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate

No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.

Edited after a good point made by samus12345.

Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago

What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I'll vote for that side, out of duress. I don't want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can't say many good things about the party I'm voting for, but I can't say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I'm going to vote for the only viable option.

This is the core of the "both sides" argument to me. We're going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It's important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we're voting for you because we REALLY DON'T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn't silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we'll actually be able to elect the one we want.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.

Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.

[-] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think there are also misguided idealists who think it's more important that they feel good about not voting for the "genocide" guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can't win, but that's not as important as them being "right".

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff.

[-] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are.

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments.

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago

To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.

Consider that a lot of the discourse you're seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they're probably going to vote for them regardless.

If you're engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren't great.

Obviously I don't think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn't already primed to have THIS argument, that'd probably be the route it'd take.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 months ago

That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago

Needs more alliteration

[-] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Biden is the fucking commander in chief.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.

This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.

[-] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.

From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/

If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service.

Biden could act unilaterally here.

This is elementary school civics in the US.

Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice.

"Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.cafe 1 points 5 months ago

Republicans don't pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that's why they are often called out for it

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

I've noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being "against" Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn't possibly vote for harm reduction.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

voting is not a harm reduction strategy.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.

[-] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Nah, none of that is correct.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] barsquid@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

Is that Jill Stein? She barely scraped past 1% of the popular vote in 2016, less than 1/3 of fucking Gary Johnson.

Oh but this time, this time Dems will learn a lesson and turn full leftist 2028. There's no risk either since muh both sides are dictators so it's equally bad either way.

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

I think there was some guy from California that was recently polling (yes polling, not locked in votes at all) around 3% in a handful of states and some of the both-siders were breaking their arms jerking each other off about it. I don’t remember the dude’s name, for the obvious reason of his candidacy being completely unviable.

this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
1910 points (89.9% liked)

Political Memes

5524 readers
507 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

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.

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

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

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS