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
Some related links, which I should have included in the first place!!
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/zohran-mamdani-democratic-party-establishment/
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/26/democrats-zohran-mamdani-meltdown-new-york
It's funny how hot Gillibrand got over Zohran, but hasn't really said a peep in the last 5ish months of all... this.
It's certainly curious.
I like how she just invented her own hysterical interpretation of the interview where zohran wouldn't condemn people for saying globalize the intifada, and then when confronted with the actual quote from zohran, including the "I won't become mayor to be the word police," and she takes that and says "actually, you DO have to be word police, you have to tell people its unacceptable to say things that other people may interpret as calling for the slaughter of millions of jews, even if you know those phrases mean something completely different from how jews feel about it"
The interviewer at that point is like well he didn't say that and what he said doesn't imply the killing of jews but okay youre clearly just a violently racist woman so lets take a question from a caller and end the interview
I hope she resigns if he wins, if not then her next election should be her last. Disgusting, hateful, disqualifying behavior from this woman in that interview.
Um, "fighting" Donald Trump.
If they're not with Zohran, they're against Democracy.
I mean this is kind of obvious at this point that the democrats and the republicans are both anti-democracy, just one covertly and the other overtly. But still. I want more people getting loud and angry at anti-democracy democrats.
I mean at this rate with about %70 of democrats saying no to Bernie's stop arm sales motions, we can already safely assume yes they are. They have only been caring about their seats for quite a while and the deals they have made to stay on those seats do not align with the aims and interests of people like Bernie and Zohran. That is why they try to stop such candidates as ferociously as Republicans.
Bought and paid for and unwilling to lose their power at any cost it seems.
Most of the people we're talking about are either members of the house or senate in our federal government. And our current system makes it very difficult to win or keep those specific seats unless you're willing to be bought and paid for. Those who don't do as they're told will get primaried by an opponent who is much better funded. It is a system that is specifically set up to choose corrupt politicians.
We desperately need campaign finance reform, but none of those politicians who are bought and paid for are going to honestly support it. Realistically, I don't see any way that we'll see it unless there is an overwhelming popular sentiment in favor of it. Where everybody is truly upset about it and politicians' hands are forced out of fear. But I don't see that happening in America any time soon, when half the country is voting Republican.
"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry." - madlad with BDE
I wonder what all the people who shamed 3rd party voters will say if establishment Democrats start throwing their support behind an independent Cuomo.
Schumer already did a kind of shy endorsement of Mamdani, after that the others politicians don't have much room to stab the party in the back. The problem here are the donors; oligarchs are pissed.
My current bet would be that Cuomo will leave his name in the ballot out of spite but not really campaign, and lots of right wing Democrats will stay silent, while the oligarchs will try to resurrect Adams' political career by throwing money at it (may all their donations burn into a pile of useless ash)
I say Democrats should be reformed in the primary, voted for in the election. The time to support Mamdani as a Democrat is now. (Billionaires like Ackman, Bloomberg aren't real Republicans or Democrats anyway, they just have a lot of money and they want to back a horse that will let them keep it). The time to bring about a change in Democratic candidates ahead of the midterms (if they happen) and next general is now. In 2~4 years, it will then be time to vote in whoever's been put forward as the best chance to stop fascism.
The same as before, that you made your choice to hand the White House to trump rather than a Democrat you didn't agree with. It's the same story down the ticket too. The Democrats may have run a lousy campaign, with poor candidates, but we all knew what the alternative was, and some ostensably left wing voters chose not to oppose that.
Let’s be real. Roe would not have fallen without Trump. And the erosion of the 3 branch system would not have gotten this far. With DEMs.
But that’s what they do. While eroding the working class through continued subsidies to the rich. It’s why the middle class is dead. Yea, Reagan started that death but the Dems just took their payments and quietly kept things moving, between every Repub term, bringing us to the present state of the billionaire class, lack of middle class, and a country where 60% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck.
They'll say they're cool with rape. Isnt that what Cuomo is in trouble for?
This one would say all the things Harris would have done wrong are still better than all the things Trump is doing wrong. I'm not and have not been a fan of Harris. She's still not Trump.
Edit: While I actually did not truly shame anyone for their vote (I hope) it was always true that third party vote was going to help Trump get in, and I do think folks shouldn’t pretend it wasn’t true. If you are going to make a principled vote in the name of sending a message, I think it’s only reasonable to be honest about the effects of that decision.
That only works when running for president. Running third party in every other election is what we should be doing. Bernie Sanders is a independent. He preached on that but nobody fucking listens. Instead they think we can fix the Democratic Party (we can't) Like police reform can't be done.
You have to build something NEW from the ground up. Why every local election we should be running candidates with a new party. One that actually stands for the people. Once we take over all the states. Then and only then do we run for president.
I'm not from US, but why not ask for something more than lesser of two evils?
Because our elections system is fundamentally broken in such a way that creating or promoting something other than the existing two makes the side you like least more likely to win. As such, unless you can get literally the entire base of one of the major parties to switch to you in the span of a single election cycle, "asking for something more than the lesser of two evils" has mostly the same practical consequences as "asking for the greater evil".
This largely breaks the premise of democracy, of course, because the two main parties don't have to follow "the will of the people", they just have to look slightly better in the eyes of their base than the other party. The way to fix it would be to greatly reform our election system, but that's difficult to do (admittedly not entirely for bad reasons, it probably would not be ideal for authoritarians to make changes to that for example), and made worse by the fact that both parties benefit from the current system vs one where even more competition can exist.
That latter point means that what it would really take, is first usurping control of one of the existing parties from those that currently run it, and then getting those newcomers into enough power at a national level to get election reform done. That's not a terribly likely path to work out, I'm afraid, but it's probably all we've got short of an actual violent revolution (which have a high risk of failing or getting co-opted by authoritarians, and in any event are a lot harder to start than some people on the internet seem to think they are). This is probably why the establishment democrats hate this guy so much, despite him only running for mayor (of a large city admittedly, but still, not exactly president or anything). Popular candidates from outside their established group are exactly the kind of thing that you would need to start this process, and if successful that group would lose much of their power.
There are 3 years and 11 months many of us spend fighting for that. Then there’s one month where keeping the literal modern nazis out of power requires some unsavory choices.
Because that's what we were given to choose from.
Insert long, tired diatribe about FPTP voting and the US two party system here.
TL;DR: Third party votes were effectively a vote for Trump. And while I actually did not truly shame anyone for their vote (I hope) this was always true, and I do think folks shouldn't pretend it wasn't true. If you are going to make a principled vote in the name of sending a message, I think it's only reasonable to be honest about the effects of that decision.
If they aren't on the ballot nationally, its too late.
Because the system is specifically designed to prevent that from happening.