this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
955 points (91.6% liked)

Political Memes

8378 readers
2680 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.

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
 
(page 8) 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

You mean Hilary. This is clearly the chance to beat that dead horse again!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (5 children)

They already could have had a progressive candidate in 2016. They chose otherwise.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

They will.

They're stupid people.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

There's always working for a campaign to help them win.

So who's the progressive darling?

. . .

Anyone?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Probably AOC she's young and actually seems to have some amount of moral character. She announces she's trying to get elected and I'll start getting every person I can on board to help her campaign.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago

They don't do that. They're just performative.

Asking them to do anything more than leave a snarky comment or meme about how both sides are the same is too big of an ask.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Democrats would rather lose their power "temporarily" than lose their influence permanently with a progressive.

We need a third party like four months ago. We are running out of time to challenge the standing democrats.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Personally, I would be ok with J.B. Pritzker. Don't love that he's a billionaire. On the other hand, he's the best governor Illinois has had in ages and seems to be trying to do right by his constituents.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

I would not be happy about Pritzker as the dem nominee...

...Because then he wouldn't be my governor anymore :(

Pritzker's the man. It pains me to praise a billionaire but he's been an AWESOME governor. Wish we could get a Pritzker-type for Chicago mayor instead of these chucklefucks we keep electing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It'll be Shapiro or Blinken. Its still all about the $$ at the DNC. Nothing else matters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah I agree. It’s really two flavors of the billionaire supporters and no real second party.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Yes AOC #2, but Kamala...

Writing was on the wall here. Need to get rid of the dinosaurs to have any chance at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Be LOUD. Get in touch. Make it unambiguously clear that we need to pivot radically left.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course they will. Either pick them or they'll send it all to hell. Even now they probably think this Trump stint will make voters desperate for their next candidate.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Captive audience, it’s why they felt so confident cozying up to Republicans like the Cheneys, because what are the left going to do, not vote?

It’s great really, you perpetuate a problem and constantly blame the people trying to actually bring about much needed change for the problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Okay this was true until the DNC leadership election, but the current leadership leans just left enough that they could go either way.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Right, which is why Ken Martins first act was to put the most centrist, business friendly, working with the far right focussed, uber zionist rebuttal person he could find to Trumps state of the union, Slotkin. he had to prostrate himself at the AIPAC altar first thing. Turning over a new leaf at the DNC, clearly. Things are all so different now. And look at how the new DLC is embracing progressives so warmly right now.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Fair enough. I didn't know about the state of the union stuff.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Except the chair has stated he is fine with ~~bribes~~ donations from “good billionaires”, so we all know it’s going to be the status quo again with them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean if you believe in your own moral integrity and the work you're doing it makes perfect sense to be willing in principle to accept billionaire money. Now I'm not saying he will or won't be more of the same, but unless you're a hardline leftist (which I don't think anyone is expecting Ken Martin to be) the only correct answer to "will you accept billionaire money" is "yes".

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The DNC's issue isn't a lack of money, they didn't lose because they didn't buy enough interviews with podcasters.

They lost because outside of Bernie and the Squad, they had no ethics, basically stood for nothing, and at times outright accepted bribes to support genocide.

The only correct answer is "no".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That's pretty much a given.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

and conspire to defeat whatever progressive is winning, even though they’ll be the only one that can defeat trump’s third term

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Of course they will. Liberalism is a center-right ideology, they're closer to fascists than leftists.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's just a way to get minorities to vote for you.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Their good old performative "Fight for Equality" which very pointedly ignores Wealth Inequality and Wealth Discrimination which curiously, are not only the biggest of them all by a huge margin, but are even the mechanisms that multiply many-fold the negative consequences (and hence the hurt) from other kinds of inequality and discrimination, AND stop the descendants of the victims of past discrimination from pulling themselves out from the hole past discrimination threw their ancestors into (in simple terms: if you were thrown into poverty by discrimination, the poverty keeps the hurt going even after the discriminatory actions have stopped and will make it very likely your descendants are stuck there and keep on suffering).

They're literaly doing the very minimum (when measured by actual effects) they can for Equality whilst claiming they're "Fighting for Equality" as loud as they can, in order to claim they're "helping the disfavored" and hence are there for the many not the few.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›