this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
811 points (79.9% liked)
Political Memes
9583 readers
1839 users here now
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.
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're easy targets. Blame the abstainers and third party voters and you don't have to confront the legitimate failures of your party and campaign.
These hills are all they're going to let us have. We'll keep eating our own in the same valley every four years.
Why not both?
Because it's not a useful strategy. Convince them they're wrong and they'll shame themselves.
I think it is important to point out the failings of others. Otherwise they may not connect the dots and learn from their mistakes.
Sometimes a mistake is innocent, say you forgot to zip up your fly. It’s important to know you forgot to do so as it could be very socially embarrassing.
Sometimes one could accidentally cut someone off in traffic because they didn’t see them. A good honk notifies them of their mistake and will hopefully drive home the fact that they probably need to pay better attention to traffic.
Pointing out that abstaining and or choosing not to vote enabled the election of the greater of two evils is equally important.
Rock on OP. Never let them forget!
Then point at the FAILED DEMOCRAT PARTY instead of voters. When biden announced he was running for re-election their own internal polling showed he’d lose. They don’t fucking care, it’s all theatre to them. Their corporate owners are happy and the donations continue to flow in from foolish rubes like you who will gladly vote blue no matter who right off a fucking cliff.
Kamala Harris spent a billion dollars and still fucking lost. But yeah go blame voters that will ensure the same thing happens in 2028 should we be so lucky to pretend to play democracy again. And it is pretend. Because if you don’t vote correctly you’re the worst person to ever exist.
I am willing to move forward with centrists as coalition partners with the left-- only because neither of us can win alone, but after this election they have to come to the table as coalition partners, NOT leaders.
Progressives need to leave the Democratic party. Voters know that neither progressives or centrists have the numbres to win alone, but Progressives have popular issues to run on, and centrists have nothing but hisorical momentum thats stopped pretty cold at the moment. All the "anyone but trump" people will still be there next election (assuming there is one) and they will vote for leadership that is promising good things. And progressives will win. So I say lets formally split, and if the centrists come along theyd be welcome, and if they'd rather go it alone then they should get used to losing because they have no other future.
I'd rather keep up the blame game, ngl. Arguments didn't work on the disingenuous pricks who helped get us here. I don't care if they personally made a difference or not, I care that they were utterly unreasonable, and the change in circumstances won't change that.
Speaking to anyone who could've voted for Kamala but didn't: I don't care about solidarity anymore; you didn't have solidarity with us when we needed you. Y'all are fucking stupid and I don't want to deal with that. I realize that's not the moral choice, but RN for the first time in over a decade I don't care about that. I'm angry. Maybe in a few more days or weeks or months that will change, maybe not. Right now I'm focusing on making sure all my remaining friends are able to get somewhere safe if the need arises and keep hope kindled in their hearts. Maybe that means other people who need my help more will suffer, die, or fall victim to their own despair, but I just don't have the wherewithal to make that my priority.
Never did. Solidarity means you aren't willing to sacrifice marginalized groups to get ahead or save your own skin. If you accept sacrificing Palestinians, you'd accept sacrificing any other group by the exact same "lesser-evilist" logic. What value does that kind of "solidarity" have?
Here's the thing. I'm trans. On our own, we represent a tiny sliver of the voting public, not worth considering from a strategic standpoint. But there are plenty of other groups of people in the same boat. Together, we are worth considering - but only together. "What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?" If we try to build a coalition in which we abandon any group that the democratic politicians deem too much of a liability to be worth protecting, that is no coalition at all, and I well understand that after Palestinians, I will be next. The very same logic that these people were willing to deploy against them can and will be deployed to justify abandoning me and mine.
What advantage do I gain from joining together in a "coalition" in "solidarity" with these fair-weather friends who will drop us at the first sign of trouble? Honestly, they are more of a liability than an asset, because if I'm buddying up with them, it damages my credibility among potentially more reliable people who have good reason not to trust them. I would rather do it the right way and build trust even if it means building from the ground up.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but these disagreements are meaningful and important. This election may be over, but the question remains of what the appropriate strategy is going forward, whether to build a coalition that will treat an offense against one as an offense against all, and ensure that anyone who comes for any part of it is unelectable, or whether to "vote blue no matter who" as we are picked off one-by-one, in exchange for temporary, short term security for some.
Every 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' absolutely are fair weather friends. it means you don't actually understand what you're voting for and have no principles for which you'd hold the line. If you wouldn't hold the line for a group experiencing a genocide you are not worth putting our group on the line for.
You can absolutely continue to try papering over what the DNC and dems like the OP just did to the palestinians but there isnt an argument on this blue earth that will result in my forgiving of it. The only option for those individuals is repentance.
Lotta usage of the word solidarity when you were reliant on a people that the Democratic candidate campaigned on continuing the genocide of.
Kinda seems like your definition of solidarity is 'support me no matter what.'
"Because of the likes of you" I'm gonna need you to explain that one.
On this platform specifically we've had months of smug people claiming to make the moral choice of directly or indirectly supporting the clearly worse choice. It's far too early to just let that slide.
If we in 100 years still sometimes talk about the early days of the fediverse where a bunch of morons fell for astroturfing, that's kind of a good outcome.
If they're real people they should feel bad.
For the not so real people, we should figure out how a distibuted system can deal with a concerted astroturfing operation.