this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
736 points (92.6% liked)

Political Memes

9293 readers
1775 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
 

Glad they're taking off the gloves a little, but it's always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they're good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (19 children)

False dichotomy, not false equivalency. Two different things.

if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.

Right here is the false dichotomy, considering the context of the comment this was written in reply to (the one by meatbridge) being a metaphor for voting, equating Chauvin to Republicans and Thao to Democrats.

You frame it as if we only had two choices. Which is verifiably wrong.

[–] memfree@piefed.social 13 points 2 days ago (17 children)

If we are talking about voting in U.S. federal elections, voters only have two choices. Third party candidates can not win with the current structure. If all states switched to ranked choice voting, and if states divided House seats by percentage of voters per party instead of winner-take-all for each gerrymandered region of a map, THEN there could be more than two options. I would like to see that happen.

[–] piefood@feddit.online -1 points 2 days ago (12 children)

You are correct that 3rd parties can't win. But how is voting for either of the other two options winning? I've seen both in power for the last few decades, and it's a shit-show either way.

You may not like the other options, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)