85 points

permalink
report
reply
20 points

What does third parties have to do with lifelong Dem voters wanting the Dem candidate to side with the Dem voting base on basic parts of the party platform like:

  1. No fracking

  2. Better healthcare

  3. Climate change is real and producing less fossil fuels is a good thing

What you’re doing is insisting if you’re not 100% loyal to the candidate with a D by their name you really have an R.

That’s the same fucking shit Republicans went thru and it ended up with trump.

Why the fuck do you want to follow down the path of “never criticize the party, and always vote for them”.

Please explain to the class why this time it will work out good for the party that takes that path.

permalink
report
parent
reply

What’s your alternative, Trump? Because a 3rd party candidate will never win the general election without a massive overhaul of our election system which will never happen as long as the Rs have a majority in any branch of the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I don’t disagree with the reality of what you’re saying, and I personally agree, but at the same time I think you have to grant people the right to vote their opinion if that’s what they choose. It’s not my choice, but people should be able to represent their views how they want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit. We’re still only eight years past an election where Hillary Clinton took the Rust Belt for granted, and we all paid the price for that when traditionally solid union votes swung to Trump because he was boosting fossil fuel extraction while Clinton implicitly threatened the livelihoods of families dependent on coal and fracking jobs.

Healthcare you have a point on, but also keep in mind that the last time Dems had the votes for sort of sweeping reform was 2008, and what we got out of that was the ACA, which for all its faults was still a big step up over the status quo. Obama was going for a big bipartisan win, in spite of McConnell’s announcing that he was killing bipartisanship in the GOP caucus, and that was a mistake, but perhaps an understandable one given that up to that point that’s how Congress had always worked.

There have been windows of time since in which Dems have held the Presidency and both houses of Congress, but never with enough margin to defeat a Senate filibuster, and with DINOs like Manchin and Sinema standing in the way of filibuster reform. I do not doubt that progressives in Congress would move an M4A or public option bill through the legislature if, in 2025, the House flips back and the Senate stays Democratic in spite of the unfavorable cycle, but withholding your vote doesn’t get you any closer to that happening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The problem is that the broader Democratic electorate is a much bigger tent, with overall much more moderate politics, than online leftists are typically willing to admit

Polls show progressive policy isn’t just popular with Dems, but all voters…

That’s life mate, I’m sorry it doesn’t agree with your opinions, but it’s the truth.

That’s why Obama’s 08 campaign did so fucking well, despite not really being that progressive in any other developed country.

The neoliberal experiment has only benefited the wealthy, stop defending them, they got lawyers and lobbyists for them, pick people over corps and we can get something done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base. It’s not ‘‘do or die’’ it’s vote for an administration that will actually respond to pressure and voter’s policy goals, or vote for a dictator backed by industralists who all want an ethnostate of uneducated second class citizens.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Except Biden repeatedly gave in to pressure from his voter base on a lot of actions, we also got a lot of changes to DNC policy care of Sanders voter base.

And Biden got elected despite his age…

2020 was an example of the candidate moving their campaign left and winning the election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It’s not that it will work out good (though in a sense, it has for the R in that they got what they actually wanted), it’s that if the Rs have ~50% ish support, no matter what they do, because of them going that route, the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Right and that makes sense…

Unfortunately that’s not what Kamala is doing.

I’ll say it till my face turns blue:

Taking a stand against fracking is all it would take to guarantee trump can’t win, but Kamala is pro-fracking, refuses to give the party voters what they want, and refuses to even explain why being pro-feacking is seen as a good choice by her and her campaign.

That isn’t the only issue she’s to the right of the party on either.

It’s like her, her campaign, and the DNC aren’t focused on beating trump, they want to beat Trump while giving the voters the bare minimum it would take, because the more they give voters, the less they get in donations.

So then telling voters “all that matters is beating trump” it’s obviously bullshit because they’re not doing everything possible to beat trump.

It ain’t complicated.

Like you said:

the only way to beat them is to get everyone that isn’t them in a coalition together.

That’s the opposite of what OP spends their time on, but considering a month ago they were intentionally spreading misinformation about when early voting started, I’m surprised the mods still let them post here.

Every single “meme” OP posts is about how Dem voters should fight with Dem voters rather than band together.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

I think this is a dumb take. Third parties are only used like this in the US because our voting system is incredibly broken and there is little interest in fixing it. If you don’t explicitly highlight the caveats:

  1. The spoiler effect is a fixable problem, even on the state by state basis.
  2. Third parties are, conceptually, a great idea

then what you’re doing is attempting to uphold and protect the broken system from being improved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

You improve a broken system by fixing the broken system, not by pretending you’re not using it.

Vote, agitate or even run as a candidate that will pass ranked choice voting, locally or larger. Support the interstate electoral vote compact. Do whatever you can to directly fix the system.

Until then, you mitigate harm within the broken system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Nobody is arguing that. The problem is presenting third parties as bad without giving any sort of context on how and where harm needs to be mitigated.

For instance: Alaska has ranked choice voting. Why on earth would you waste resources telling people to oppose third parties if you know some of the people you’re talking to live in alaska? It makes no sense. The problem here, as it has always been, is the voting system cannot handle 3rd parties and we should back away from them where spoiler effects are a concern

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It is a fixable problem, but it is not a fixed problem. Bringing them up during presidential elections and only during presidential elections doesn’t fix the problem and just leads to it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

So you won’t complain about spoilers during midterms, then?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Which is why the correct way to bring it up is to mention the spoiler effect.

The problem is when you talk to some republicans they want a 1 party system. They want to ban democrats. If you talk to some democrats they believe we should ban third parties. These are both antidemocracy views that normalize each other.

So what you’re arguing for here (to be very clear) is that it is better to embrace a softer form of anti-democracy messaging than to explain that we should avoid voting third party when spoiler effects are a concern.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The spoiler effect is absolutely a fixable problem. It would be great if our current third party candidates actually put in effort to exist in the political eye and work for said reform, outside of crawling out of their hole every 4 years to run for President.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Bad faith: “I want her to stop sending weapons to the country doing genocide.”

Good faith: “So basically you’re demanding that she solves the entire conflict immediately.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

At least some, like Ralph Nader, regretted it. Now we have those actively seeking to spoil the vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

The tragic thing about Nader was his activism basically proved to General Motors and later large American corporations in general that political engagement and and public opinion was vital. The corpos learned to fight grass roots activism with astro-turf until they were just as skilled as Nader’s acolytes, only with orders of magnitude more resources.

Every time I see an Oil company do a commercial about their commitment to the environment I think of Ralph.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Similarly, Woodward and Bernstein showed the corporations how dangerous an independent press was.

Back in Watergate Era, there were plenty of locally owned newspapers and TV stations. Today, thanks to ronald reagan’s assault on the Fairness Doctrine, we have six major media companies controlling what we hear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This.

So many conversations had where people talk about kamela being a war criminal who loves genocide because she doesn’t nuke Israel.

People need to get a grip and get a basic understanding that the world is just not that simple.

permalink
report
reply
32 points
*

This shit is so fucking stupid…

People ask why Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base…

And rather than say “yeah, I can’t provide a valid reason she keeps going to the right”, we keep getting these posts about how it doesn’t matter?

Imagine if Kamala’s line was just to the right of yours, whatever you care most about, she’s just going to agree with trump on.

And when you go around, asking why you aren’t important enough to be on Kamala’s side of the line, everyone told you to stop being a baby and be happy with what you get, even tho what you want isn’t included in her platform

Like, we don’t gain votes by supporting a genocide.

We don’t gain votes from a border wall and Trump’s other border policies Kamala adopted.

Shit. Just being pro-fracking is going to lose us PA, and trump can’t win the election without PA.

That one fucking issue that not a single person can explain why she holds. That’s all it would take to prevent trump.

But instead of using your time productively to try and get Kamala to change while there’s still time…

You want to shit on the people the party left behind?

Like this doesn’t even seem like trying to bully them into voting anymore, you’re punching down on these people constantly and gleefully…

You’re acting exactly like a fucking trump supporter.

TLDR:

The people trying to pull Kamala left are the ones helping Kamala

You’re trying to do the same thing Hillary supporters tried to do in 2016…

Do you honestly not remember how that worked out?

Or is this all intentional?

permalink
report
reply
14 points

You’re trying to do the same thing Hillary supporters tried to do in 2016…

Do you honestly not remember how that worked out?

If liberals were capable of self criticism and learning they wouldn’t be liberals.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Why is it that everything I read from .ml is so stupid

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Not everything you can’t understand is stupid. And the more you yell about, the more you draw attention to your significant limitations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

It condones the genocide, or else it gets the fascist again.

-Lemmy libs

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Also Bluesky libs, Reddit libs, threads libs, tiktok libs, podcast libs …

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I see your comments all the time and I just want to say, thank you.

I don’t have the energy or care enough to put forth the effort to try to explain these things to the brick wall that is the standard Liberal viewpoint around here. I’m just glad someone is though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

Sorry but he’s wrong. History shows every time the Dems go left, they lose. The only times the Dems win is when they go center to find voters.

(Ib4 Obama, he saw Gore lose on a progressive ticket. So he learned to stay broad and ran on “hope”. His thanks for the ACA was to lose control of the house of reps for years 3-8 and couldn’t do anything else.)

Take this fracking example of his.

Did the environmentalists show up for Gore? No they did not.

Did the environmentalists show up for Clinton who said she’d have a map room to fight climate change? No they did not.

Were the environmentalists going to show up for Biden after he passed green energy and ev policies? Polls said no they were not going to show up.

Harris saying she’d ban fracking is an instant loss. She and everyone advising her knows this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You mean they actually had to get up off their arses to support what they preached?

That was too much effort for them man. Easier to bitch about a subject while sitting on the couch and complaining no one is doing anything, and when their preferred candidate loses, they have bragging rights that they are not listened to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Same.

I’ll just sit out. You can’t reason with extremists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Username checks out

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

@givesomefucks@lemmy.world

Imagine if Kamala’s line was just to the right of yours, whatever you care most about, she’s just going to agree with trump on.

But that is not how it works. If she is to your right, she will hold a position to the right of your position. That’s all. How do you equate her being to your right to her agreeing with Trump? That assumes that to your right everything is one single position. But that is of course not the case. It’s a continuum, and Kamala is probably closer to you than Trump is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

How do you equate her being to your right to her agreeing with Trump?

The shitty “meme” that your commenting under…

Specifically?

Being pro fracking, for Trump’s border wall…

Pretty much all those policies that she agrees with trump on…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Surely there are more policies she disagrees with Trump that policies she agrees with him. Shouldn’t that proportion be enough to make progressive voters to vote for her?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That assumes that to your right everything is one single position.

That’s how these people think. Yes-or-no, black-or-white, totally agree or mortal enemies.

There’s either a genocide or there isn’t, no concept of relative scale. There’s either environmentalism or there isn’t. There’s support for immigrants or bigoted xenophobia. No complexity. No shades of gray.

You either agree with me completely about everything, or you are the enemy. It’s why Leftism inevitably eats itself. Completely incapable of compromise.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

People ask why Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base…

clearly the point of the meme is that the Middle East geopolitical situation is too complicated for the simplistic view that many leftist voters have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Kamala is so far right on so many issues compared to the Dem voter base

The American voter base, yes including the democrats, is extremely conservative (at least compared to me) on almost every issue. When it comes to global warming, for instance, 1% of them are vegan. Maybe 10% would be on board with disincentivizing car ownership. These people are dumb as shit.

If you’re not willing to interact with reality, you can’t solve any problems, and at this point your refusal to get out of your echo chamber looks like you don’t actually want to solve any problems at all. You just want to hide and play pretend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

is extremely conservative

No, they’re not.

Poll after poll for years have shown progressive policy is popular with voters…

The problem is we never run a candidate who wants progressive policy.

But honestly?

The majority of your last comment was just insulting people you do t understand and is indecipherable from a trumpets comment about a Republican criticizing trump…

I’m probably going to just block you if all you want to do is act like a trump supporter, I honestly probably should have instead of typing this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Wow, for real? Amazing! What percentage of Americans want to end factory farms? What percentage think gas guzzling SUVs should be illegal? What percentage want us to build free housing for the poor, or support a more aggressive version of the wealth tax proposed by Kamala?

I’ll answer that for you: between 3% and 20% across the board. You’re totally goddamned delusional and it’s why we can’t make any progress.

Instead of complaining about politicians who are doing their best you can try converting conservative democrats (which is most of them) to your side. But that would take effort, right? That would take contact with reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

progressive policy is popular with voters

Until they learn that Democrats want to do it lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Can you stop making each sentence a paragraph?

It makes it impossible to read.

Can’t follow what goes together.

It doesn’t make you profound.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Posting memes on lemmy won’t change Kamala’s positions or strategies, but convincing “both sides” lemmy users how important it is to pick the better of two options could change things. Every time the left-leaning party loses due to lack of turnout (aka punishing them for not being left enough) they move right instead of left. The only way to move the country left is to do whatever you can to get the most left-leaning viable candidate elected. Over time this pushes the whole electorate left.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The only way to move the country left is to do whatever you can to get the most left-leaning viable candidate elected. Over time this pushes the whole electorate left.

The last Dem president before neoliberalism was Jimmy Carter like 50 years ago

Would you say that the current strategy has paid off?

If not, how many more decades before we start thinking the people running the party are at best idiots who shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I agree with you, what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Allowing Reagan and Bush and Bush and Trump to get elected hasn’t helped anyone. You could argue Nader got GWB elected but cheating and the Supreme Court were a big part of that too. How different would our current politics be if we had a term or two of Gore instead of Bush? Hard to say. Maybe primary voters wouldn’t have felt like they needed to pick a “safe” neolib over a demsoc in 2016 if they could believe he’d be viable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You’re demand for perfection over progress will damn/kill us all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s not a demand for perfection…

I’m voting for Kamala.

What were talking about is how to get her the most votes so she beats trump…

She does that by appealing to voters who may vote for her.

By going left on issues such as climate change, foreign aid, education, the economy, fossil fuel production…

If she moves left on those issues. She gets more votes.

I do t see how talking about any of this is “demand for perfection” tho

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

“By going left on issues such as climate change, foreign aid, education, the economy, fossil fuel production…”

Oh, sounds you are actually voting for Jill Stein

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

He would have you killed with for these comments. Do you fucking get it

https://feddit.uk/post/18652620

And thanks to the Supreme Court he’d be immune for it too. Not to mention his promise to END ALL ELECTIONS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

You’re acting exactly like a fucking trump supporter.

Blue MAGA is real, and now that they’ve finally accepted Biden won’t be the candidate, they produce this kind of “support” for Kamala. It’s a shitlib’s shitpost, make no mistake.

Anyway, I think Kamala’s lackluster policy positions can be quite easily explained by the age old Pelosi adage - “lean to the green.” Kamala is a corporate establishment dem through and through - if you’re expecting anything else, prepare to be disappointed.

She’s obviously still a better choice than Trump, but as you point out, she needs to be pressured hard from the left at this juncture in order to still have a chance to win the election. If the donors drag her too far to the right, why would people vote for her, right wing lite, over Trump?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

What part of the manifesto did you agree with to get your .ml badge?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

“Blue MAGA” is Russian propaganda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sure. That’s why people on the left have been using it for a decade now.
Because, it’s a bad way to describe people like OP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Shit. Just being pro-fracking is going to lose us PA

I don’t particularly disagree with what you’ve said but can you elaborate on this one?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2024-10-10/pa-voters-split-on-fracking-but-show-widespread-support-for-stronger-regulations

58% of PA voters want it banned, because they’re the ones who are getting fucked over most by fracking.

Even the other 42% want more regulations on it

But the only two candidates for president both think it’s fine, and want to open up more land to it.

If Kamala sided with people over corporations on this issue, it would lock down PA, and also help with the other coal states around them.

The only people who are pro-fracking are fossil fuel executives and the politicians they bribe donate to

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Thanks for the info! To be honest in my ignorance I kind of assume most people in areas where a large employer is located support that business because their incomes depend on it. As usual there’s nuance to everything though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
147 points
*

This is extremely misleading. Fuck Trump 10000 times and kamala is the only sane choice, but stop trying to paint over reality to try and make her look like she’s not just a lesser evil.

She didn’t just “not promise to solve 1000 year conflict” (which the genocide has been going on for the last 75 years),

she did promise to continue funding genocide with American taxpayer dollars. (Of which the US has been giving and average of $5 billion in tax dollars and weapons to Isreal per year for the last 75 years, since they first invaded Palestine).

We are voting for her because she is the lesser evil. We don’t have to be happy about it or stop criticizing her on her bad policies.

Basically: Vote for Harris, but also fuck her for vowing to continue funding genocide. Trump would also keep funding genocide, and he’d also destroy what’s left of the west, on top of every other obvious reason he should never be in power again (and never should have been).

permalink
report
reply
63 points

OP consistently makes posts that only divide the Dem base.

Considering they started out with AI posts lying about early voting, I guess it’s an improvement?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Again. I think sometimes the division is purposeful. Say some bullshit that’s meant to infuriate the left pretending to be the Democrats because they don’t even care to hide their bad takes anyways and split the base that can’t be bothered to try to win even more.

But that’s probably giving to much credit and its just Democrats actually with bad takes hoping to stick to the center and blame everyone else for the center not actually being that popular.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Right wing morons and shills can’t exactly base their arguments on how much better Republicans are, so they come at it sideways with this bullshit.

Well, jokes on them because “the left” isn’t made up of complete morons like they have in the MAGA movement. Despite neoliberal whining to the contrary, the left has been consistently the most reliable voting demographic the Democrats have, and that’s despite the fact that the establishment shits on us at every opportunity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

This is classic liberal brain worm nonsense.

Blue maga cultists world rather blame leftists than get your shitty candidate in line with her genocidal policies.

It’s not a difficult situation to resolve: stop supplying Israel with weapons and support.

permalink
report
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

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.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.7K

    Posts

  • 47K

    Comments