this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
462 points (80.6% liked)
Political Memes
11571 readers
2525 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) 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
I had a long chat with you about this recently. And I don't think I said "screw you fascist" or "who needs a plan?" And I think I stated it pretty clearly. If the democrats want our votes, they have to not arm genocide. Not voting for them until they stop arming a genocide is a perfectly clear way of staking that position. If literally no votes are held back for that modicum of decency then they have absolutely no reason to change. There's absolutely nothing confusing or illogical about it, and I don't know why y'all pretend you're so bamboozled by it. I mean...you can disagree, go for it. Vote blue no matter who if that suits you. That's what I think.
But you want to know what I feel? All of you are in here with a photo of two characters whose lives have been destroyed, imagining "this could be me thanks to those assholes who wouldn't vote for this to happen to other people." It's so unbelievably selfish. We all gotta just accept that Palestinians will suffer like this...that's the price we pay for it not to be us.
so now we have a fascist rapist pedophile con man in office, the genocide is worse than ever, and now we have a new genocide in the making, not to mention in the states, and i'm skeptical that "votes" will even be a thing ever again.
congrats on your moral superiority
And all the democrats had to do to avoid it was not arm a genocide? Which they shouldn't have done anyway? Failing to see how this is my fault.
Sorry if we got in the way of your plan to throw palestinians in the woodchipper and go back to brunch. Congrats on your moral inferiority?
because they would have been better off under trump? how's that going btw?
how about the iranians? how about immigrants? how about education? healthcare? environment? economy?
dude, the "i won't vote for genocide" thing is noble, but you're ignoring the real world in favor of your idealistic delusion of a country where we can just throw our vote away and think that will change something.
can i tell you a secret: the united states of america will NEVER stop fellating israel. no matter who is president. did you think jill stein (or who the fuck ever) would snap their fingers and all of a sudden put a leash on israel? honest question
I mean...i'm sure you agree with this: if the democrats want to win, they should not be making choices that cost them votes. Their post-mortem on 2024 tells them that continuing their pro-genocide position cost them votes (according to axios anyway, who I guess got a peek at it somehow. the democrats have decided they are not going to publish it.).
That's real pressure for them to change. Not voting for the democrats created that pressure. They now know that abandoning israel will lead to a net-increase in their votes.
And yeah, I would hope that when looking down the barrel of more domestic fascism, knowing that it will matter from a purely Machiavellian perspective, the democrats will stop arming a genocide.
Like...I get how scared everyone is. I have family members who are undocumented immigrants in the US. It is terrifying. My neice might get shipped off to some el-salvadorian torture prison. Life would have been better for them if Harris had won. But I don't regret refusing to vote for Harris because (a) I reject the claim that I have some ethical culpability for what the the fascists do (that's just some ontological fuckery that I can't straighten out in my mind, even with the benefit of a philosophy undergrad and years more of school and work figuring out all kinds of tax-law fuckery), and (b) people taking this position has created measurable pressure on the democrats to change. I guess there's also the sneaky (c) my vote would not have counted anyway because I'm not from a swing state.
you've done a lot of work to justify your wrong position of doing nothing to keep the rapist pedophile fascist con man moron out of office.
bravo.
i'm sure you're very proud of yourself. but you haven't defended your position in the slightest, despite your "i'm an undergrad in philosophy" (fucking seriously, dude?) "authority" on the subject of how a populace should avoid authoritarianism, which is a key objective in a democracy.
don't worry bro--i give it 50/50 whether the votes will even matter in november, and if we come out on the bottom, then the chances will be 00/100. but that's just me. maybe the country will wake up and realize that in order to change things for the better, the only thing we can do is flush our votes down the toilet.
for fucks fucking sake. i'm glad you're happy with yourself
wow dude...
You have done a lot of work to justify your voting to continue arming the genocide of Palestinians. And hey, if you find that convincing, have at it.
And you’re jumping through some real conceptual hoops to blame me for what Donald trump does lol I didn’t vote for him. You did vote for Harris.
Like I said, I’m a lawyer. I’m used to weird mental gymnastics. I only mention my bachelors in case your mental gymnastics require a doctorate in philosophy to understand or what? Like…walk me through how you get to my moral culpability for the actions of Donald trump, as someone who didn’t vote for him. Explain that to an idiot like me.
how's that genocide thing going? is that fixed now, or....?
in our current situation, what are next steps? throw our votes away again?
It’s horrifying. I didn’t support it, and our lack of support is making one party rethink their support for it. Your acquiescence to it did fuck all for Palestinians.
who is the not-kamala candidate everyone should have voted for?
that's what i thought.
There wasn’t one, and ain’t that a bitch? Isn’t that suspicious? Isn’t that a problem?
The answer is that (I know this might seem totally insane to you) the people with power are not the voters. The people with power decide if we get fascism at home or genocide abroad. And they’re the ones to blame when we do. They have agency and culpability.
I’m sick of this ridiculous ethical Rube Goldberg machine, which none of you can explain, that blames me for that.
I don’t blame you for picking the lesser of two evils…what do I care? Just shut the hell up and stop punching left.
if voting does nothing, then why do you think not voting does something?
Because the democrats might just want to win enough to stop arming a genocide. If we…I don’t know…anti genocide holdouts or whatever…don’t vote, then we can give the democrats something they want. If we vote blue no matter who, why would the democrats change?
The people with power are also in a struggle with each other, democrats and republicans are one of the main embodiments of that struggle. The democrats might decide that they’re willing to deign to stop arming a genocide if it helps them beat the republicans.
it's interesting how, according to you, democrats are satan who want nothing more than to kill palestinians
while trump is enabling the killing of palestinians and now iranians. what was the quote? "end your civilization" or something? please correct me on the quote, and also the exact wording of our new fascist leader's opinion of palestinians
"it's all the democrats' fault"
LOL no.
this is a strawman
Yeah the better version of this meme has the text, "Well at least she didn't say anything antisemitic."
There's that brunch thing again. I guess eating at 11am is horrifyingly bourgeoise, but that seems kind of dumb.
Brunch is lovely.
But I'm using brunch as a metaphor for "living a comfortable life and not worrying about the suffering inflicted with your tax dollars."
I am responding to brynden here, but this is for anyone, especially those who believe the most moral choice in Nov 2024 was to vote third party or not at all...
Do you pay taxes to the US government? If you do, could you explain to me how not voting for Harris absolves you of moral culpability for genocide, but giving thousands of dollars every year to the Feds (who have always been controlled by a major party), who will use that money to directly fund genocide, doesn't make you even more culpable than that single vote for Harris?
Do you all live off the grid on a barter system?
Because you don’t pay taxes voluntarily? You pay taxes under duress. If you don’t they put you in prison.
So, your ethical/moral framework is optional. Only comes into play if there are no consequences or fallout from you doing the right thing. Got it.
Voting for someone who says "I will arm a genocide" means you've voluntarily helped that person to do that.
I don't think paying taxes under duress to a government that arms a genocide is comparable.
Do I understand you as saying "you could go to jail rather than pay taxes, therefore you're a hypocrite for not voting for someone who says 'I will arm a genocide'?"
Wow you really showed them.
I mean…actually though; their postmortem says they lost net votes due to arming the genocide.
But I've been told that it wasn't enough to change the outcome? Which is it?
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza
I don't know whether it was enough to change the outcome or not, but it's a net negative for them, which means that we (folks who abstain until they stop arming a genocide) did show them. You said that sarcastically...but like...we did. We don't know yet whether they'll change course or not, but at the very least you can say we showed them it matters from a purely Machiavellian perspective.
That’s true, that was not you. We did have a good chat and iirc you had voted for Dems up until Harris? I forget but you weren’t against voting, you just had the single issue that defined all others.
Yeah, but that’s where we are now and it’s very very bad. I disagree that change of the kind you’re looking for will come about through throwing the election to avowed fascists, but it is at least a defined position with room to move forward, which is a lot more than some of the other intransigent non-voters.
I think "throwing the election" is overstating it. Harris lost votes because she decided to continue arming a genocide. The democrats know that...if they didn't know it before (doubt), they do now. Their position cost them votes. That's what their post-mortem says, according to Axios anyway. So if they don't change course, they're choosing to have fewer votes. They really really should not risk choosing to have fewer votes.
The problem is that this way of thinking is backwards and ineffective. I don't give a shit about rewarding Democrats with my vote; I care about securing the most favorable conditions I can. When both popular options are bad, that means picking the less bad one, even if it's only slightly less bad; even if it's exactly as bad by one metric, and only better on other metrics. Our votes aren't to give them some achievement trophy, they're to determine who will be making policy decisions.
Further, it isn't really an effective way to force them to change. People who didn't vote for them didn't fill out a questionnaire to communicate why they didn't vote for them. The only way they get that information is if it's given to them somehow.
They have information about what will happen if they break with Israel: AIPAC will dump tons of money into opposing them. Not only will they lose the Zionist portion of their voter base, but wealthy Zionists will inundate them with attack ads to jeopardize other portions of their base.
They're going to do calculations, based on the actual communicated data they have, to weigh the number of voters they'd lose vs. the number of voters they'd gain by withdrawing support for Israel. The data against withdrawing support for Israel is highly organized, heavily funded, and very clearly communicated. However widespread you think the movement to withdraw support is, it's less organized, less funded, and less clearly communicated. From the perspective of DNC leadership, the calculations are clear.
If you want them to change, you need clear, organized data to show them what the change needs to be and how many people support it. You need tens of millions of signatures on a clearly worded petition. Otherwise, you're essentially just a loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment.
I disagree with your ethical framing (to my personal moral compass, I’m less culpable in the ongoing genocide if I didn’t legitimize the people arming it by voting for them, even if the other party would have also armed the genocide), but setting that aside, I guess this loose collection of anonymous strangers giving them the silent treatment have had an effect. The democrats’ postmortem apparently says that arming genocide resulted in a net loss of votes for them.
They know. The calculations are clearly against supporting a genocide…which should be a no brainer no matter how organized or funded the genocidiers are.
You seem to be a strict deontologist. I do not subscribe to that worldview. I find it childish and self-centered, both ineffective and rarely consistent. But putting that aside, "legitimacy" is irrelevant. It will continue with or without your personal blessing. It's moralistic posturing with no material effect.
I don't think that's what it says at all. I think it may have said that it resulted in a raw loss of votes, I do not think that it reflected a net loss of votes. I think their data implies they would have lost more votes in changing positions than they would have gained. Like it or not, the propaganda is strong, and there are more low-information voters than high-information ones. Go against Israel, and you go against AIPAC. Go against AIPAC, and you're in for a world of hurt on the political field. You're not just losing active Zionists, you're losing fence-sitters who are not immune to waves of attack ads.
Obviously not supporting a genocide is a no-brainer, but the majority of voters have no brain to speak of. You can't beat organized and well-funded propaganda with the silent treatment.
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza
What do you mean, you don’t think that’s what it says? Have you seen it? I’d love to get a copy if you’re leaking it! Do you just mean you imagine it wouldn’t say that?
I’m not a strict deontologist; I’d say I’m closer to a strict utilitarian lol My vote doesn’t mean anything except legitimizing the people I vote for and the system as a whole. The democrats and the republicans actually have power. They are the moral agent here.
In a trolley problem (since you seem like someone who might be familiar), voters are just watching from afar and wishing for the people at the switch to make one choice or the other. And that’s fine. But don’t give me shit for not wasting my time wishing.
You are very much not. Again with the "legitimizing". There is no "legitimacy" metric in elections. Power doesn't scale with vote count. All that matters is which side beats the other. If only one person "legitimizes" the system, and everyone else refuses to vote, the winner still has all the powers of the president. The outcome is exactly the same as if every single voter chose them.
They don't get fewer powers for winning with only one vote, they don't get any extra powers by winning by 100 million votes. The concept of "legitimizing" the system is a fiction that exists only in the mind of deontologists.
In the trolley problem, voters are voting on whether to pull the lever. If enough people vote to pull the lever, the lever is pulled. It's even more clear cut than the trolley problem, because Gaza is on both tracks. You don't even save them by not pulling the switch, you just let everyone else on that track die too. There's no reason not to pull the switch, there is no dilemma. Inaction is objectively the wrong choice.
My goodness you're sweet! I think you have an extremely charitable faith in your government.
Obviously if you think voters get to determine outcomes then not voting seems completely absurd! I have power I'm not using! But the reality is that the people absolutely do not have power. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Gilens and Page is a good starting point. Its conclusion is that there is no correlation at all between public opinion and policy. On the other hand the correlation between the economic elite's policy preferences and the policies adopted shows up on the graph as a nice, neat upward-slanting line at 45 degrees, with a 70 percent correlation between strong elite support and policy adoption. Later studies have continued to back up this finding. It doesn't make the press much, of course, because no one with power benefits from this getting talked about.
You are imagining the voters are a person with a lever that's red on one side and blue on the other, with all the corresponding policy on the two tracks. I think the trolley problem analogy I described is closer to useful. There are two with power arguing over how to handle the lever (or maybe even...at the risk of complicating the trolley problem even further, levers!), and voters are far away, wishing or shouting their support for one or other of those people with power. When the democrat or republican wins, they'll pull the levers to enact the policies they see fit to.
And yes, voting absolutely legitimizes the system, why do you think they always cite turnout statistics? What do you mean there is no legitimacy metric in elections? It's absolutely untrue that all that matters is which side beats the other. If a population boycotts an election, that's an expression of power and absolutely delegitimizes the results. That's an extreme example, but it applies all the way up. The United States wants to pretend to be a democracy; it has to pretend that its people get a say in how things are done. Participating in that system absolutely legitimizes that narrative. I'm not saying you should never do it, just because it's a lie. If the democrats changed course on palestine I'd be banging on doors for them, trying to get as many people to vote as possible, even though I know it's a lie that they are doing it for any reason other than to help in their struggle with the other bourgeois party. That little grain of legitimacy from your little vote is not a lot, but it's something. And frankly, if your vote isn't going to matter anyway because you don't live in a swing state, that grain of legitimacy is the only thing you can contribute.
This is your central flaw. It doesn't. The winner still gets sworn in, they still choose their cabinet, they still enact their policies. Life goes on without your input.
That also happens when a banana republic has an election with over 100% turnout lol The fact that a dictatorship holds elections and then does stuff doesn't make it a democracy.
What does that have to do with my point?
In response to my point that voter turnout legitimizes democracy, you point out that elections lead to winners who go ahead and govern, regardless of turnout...and that means the results are legitimate. Which is wrong.
If you think democracy (rule by the people) means anything, then whether the system gets input from people or not clearly matters. Only fascists think that power is the only legitimacy. So, despite their "elections," and despite the fact that the winners go on to govern, if the population does not turn up to vote, elections are not democratic. Whether that's because the people have no faith in the system, or because of state repression doesn't really matter...the people cannot be said to be ruling that state. Showing up to vote legitimizes the system, and not showing up delegitimizes it.
The CIA-backed opposition parties in countries the US doesn't like call for boycotts. Opposition parties to CIA-backed leaders of banana republics call for boycotts. If it's not a thing...why do you think they're all doing that?
So? That's not a mechanism that overturns the result. There's nothing in the Constitution that says " If enough voters boycott the election, the result is illegitimate and new candidates must be chosen".
"Legitimacy" is a functionally meaningless term here. It has exactly zero effect on the material outcome. It's not a real thing that means anything outside your head.
So it's meaningless to say Russia's a legitimate democracy and putin is the legitimate democratically elected leader? Batista was in Cuba too, I guess...he held elections. The July 26 movement (and others) boycotted them because they were just dumb...they shoulda just voted harder! They just didn't understand that democratic legitimacy doesn't matter. Maybe they should have circulated a petition to stop the slavery and torture and stuff.
I don't know what the material effect of the lack of faith in the electoral system caused by these parties getting less and less interested in pretending the US is a democracy will be...but it's not inside my head, man. The rest of the world (and history) are paying attention. Other countries are (and should be) distancing themselves from the United States.
It's as though you think Almighty God handed down the Constitution of the United States as immutable laws of the universe. As though the only thing that matters is which flavor of asshole is sitting on the throne.
The constitution only lays out the rules of the game, but if the game is bullshit, the game is bullshit. Should we change the rules of the game? Should we keep playing the game? What do I do when the rules of the game are not fair? What do I do when if the rules are fair but another player is pointing a gun at me? Questions like this cannot be answered by the rules of the game.
Something that actually accomplishes a change in some way. Boycotting an election isn't that.
As you may have picked up from reading my comment, the question you quoted was not a question I was asking you, it was part of a list of questions that cannot be answered by the constitution. There is not a short and sweet answer to questions like that.
A blanket statement that boycotting an election doesn't accomplish change in some way is such a wild take. Have you ever read anything that wasn't part of the state's mandatory victorious history of the empire for children? I'm sure you have, you seem like a bright person...so what the hell are you talking about?
Just answer this: why did anti-apartheid groups in south africa boycott elections, rejecting the government's "reform" strategy? You're saying it's because they're fools, and I think that's because you're not applying any critical thinking whatsoever. Maybe you don't mean what you said, and mean something more specific.