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
Modern day liberals would have shrugged their shoulders at Hitler. Not even hyperbole. We have become so individualistic as a country that we don't give a damn about our tax dollars killing civilians overseas.
Scratch a neo-liberal a fascist bleeds. They'd be the ones who'd vote for Hitler for "economic reasons."
It's funny to say this in defense of the people who literally shrugged their shoulders when it came down to a vote to prevent Hitler from taking office.
If we were on reddit, I'd cross post this to selfawarewolves.
Honest question: what responsibility, if any, do you place on the Democratic establishment in all this? First we held our noses and voted for Joe Biden, who was clearly old as fuck, then we didn't get a primary because Biden dropped out of the race at the last possible minute.
Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians are shifting to the right, with their pro-billionaire pro-Israeli "bipartisan" politics.
We draw a line at literal genocide. (Hence my earlier comment about Hitler.) Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians. Fuck outta here.
Probably similar, if not the same responsibility that you do.
The expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank, and the treatment of Palestinians as second class citizens in on their own land enjoys bipartisan support in the US government.
Democrats are too willing to make concessions to try to flip middle of the road voters, and too fearful of enacting beneficial changes to engage the more leftist groups.
The Democratic leadership (both within the party and Congress) is selected by compliance and seniority, rather than capability, and momentum.
Democrats are too happy to preserve the status quo instead trusting their voters to turn out and take risks on disrupting broken systems.
I find the main differences between myself and the anti-kamala non-voters is that I understand that democracy is inherently a compromise. No candidate is going to reflect all your values. Every who makes it to the national stage is going to have positions that are unpalatable to some of their voters. I can live with continuing the status quo, especially when the alternative is a full on genocide, another endless war, more territorial expansion, the erosion of personal liberties, the undermining of elections, rigging of courts...etc.
At the end of the day, the people who held their vote or voted 3rd party in 2024 made a gamble. They gambled that trump wouldn't win, and Democrats would get the message that they need to move further left to get more votes. That was the best outcome. What they risked for it, was literally everything. Food, water, shelter, rights, subsequent elections, the rule of law, and any possibility of limiting Israel's genocide. That's a fucking dumb gamble. Low chance of success, low chances of change, risked against an extremely high chance of losing everything. That's a dumb fuckin' bet. I have no idea how anyone with 2 braincells can look at the situation after abstaining their vote and going "yeah, I totally made the right decision, and none of this is my fault. I'm gonna go on the internet and brag about it."
I think the main problem is that voters think that the only thing they need to do is vote. If you really care about what is happening, you need to be involved in much more of the political process which means volunteer work. And most people believe that they do not have any time to devote to that so they are 'stuck' voting for what others put in place. Of course those 'others' are going to put in place what works best for themselves. Even if you didn't think Harris was a good choice, you could have voted differently on the rest of the ballot. In a democracy you get both what you vote for and what you don't vote against.
Personally, I think Democrats would have reined in Netanyahu and not given him the full freedom that Trump does because unlike Trump they don't worship the guy, the Christian Nationalists wouldn't be trying to get them to start Armageddon through Israel's actions, and Putin wouldn't be pulling their strings rooting for this to happen to hasten the downfall of the US. It may not have been good for Palestinians but I don't think it would have been as atrocious. I could be wrong but we will never know. Another note: Americans have never been against genocide, so long as it is their side that is committing it. As they see most laws/morals/ethics, it is only wrong when the other guy is doing it. Which is one of the reasons that Americans exempted themselves from the world court - so they could do with impunity what other countries would be tried for.
Seems like everyone forgets their civics class but voting for a president is not the place to make your voices heard for issues.
You'll typically have the top three choices: A democrat A republican A throwaway third choice
For most it will be voting for the lesser evil. Because the alternatives can mean rapid stagflation, war in the middle east, supporting paedophiles, and a myriad of other problems, while the other is essentially maintaining the status quo.
For proper change you have to organize locally, vote for local elections and keep pushing your representatives to represent you throughout the year. By the time primaries come around, typically candidates are already known figures and the party points are gathered from data throughout the year.
Honestly, after a certain point I feel like all the posts about people saying they would rather not vote at all despite the two distinct choices are some sort of psyops campaign to bring chaos to the world.
I can't wrap my head around people seriously being more okay with this criminal in office than an imperfect candidate.
You know many people who don't vote, it's a third of the population. Why on God's Green Earth would you choose "I feel like it's a psy-op!" as a possibility?
A third of people don't want to be involved in politics at all, and more join them every year. That's not due to psy-ops, that's due to generations of bOtH pArTiEs ignoring what voters want.
Something like 70% of people want universal healthcare. Still can't get it. SEVENTY PERCENT.
About 90% of Democrats want universal healthcare. It doesn't matter.
I vote, but just for cheap laughs.
Except when the Democrat party orchestrates the primaries anyway.
A lot of people view it differently.
To many people, you don't. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you'll vote for them, but you don't view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.
Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don't get "none of the above". You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.
That's the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it's one of two.
So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.
What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying "they're both the same to me", and later indignantly saying how they're against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn't sell it hard enough.
No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it's confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn't do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn't say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.
See, democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder. The math doesn't work that way: either we give a shit about people's right to live or we don't. You don't get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler. This is what's called having a semblance of moral principles. It's not virtue signaling to demand our government stop BOMBING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, what the fuck is wrong with you people. Maybe if you went further left instead of being so ready to "compromise" we could, I don't know, pressure our politicians into doing something.
This is the coveted Lesser of Two Evils^tm^ argument. You people parrot this line as though it were a truism. Here's an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference? (On second thought, don't answer that.) Arguing for the "lesser evil" only pacifies our anger in an attempt to redirect the people to continue supporting corporate Democrats no matter how bad our material conditions deteriorate. People who believe this argument preserve the status quo.
America has been in decline since Ronald fucking Reagan. Presidential powers have been growing for decades. Congress has been corrupt for decades. We have broken (and supported breaking) international laws for decades. We leverage our control of the global economy, and the global reserve currency, in favor of US billionaires. The rich have gotten obscenely wealthy while the average American is one missed paycheck away from financial ruin. The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.
The Democratic party is either powerless to stop these trends or they are complicit. At what point are we going to demand more?
If doing nothing means I’m going to be force fed the lemonade with 50% urine, then I would prefer the latter option. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but it’s the better outcome.
Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?
Who said anything about ignoring? It's harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It's less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I'll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can't do something to help people because it's accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn't try to keep them from getting HIV.
I'm sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.
Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?
And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.
I wouldn't be happy, but if drinking the 10% one ensured I were less likely to have to drink the 50% one and was forced to drink one either way, I'm sure as hell drinking the 10%
Its a bit different -- Hitler was appointed chancellor by Von hindenburg. He never won an election. He was appointed by a man who was way too old -- bedridden and dementia afflicted. He didnt even recognize Hitler when presented to him for the appointment, and thought he was talking to the old Kaiser. (kind of reminds you of Biden doesnt it..)
all y'all are shrugging your shoulders at trump and expecting someone else to do something, so hey. that's EXACTLY what you would have done about hitler
As opposed to you who is doing...?
Do you want the full list or just the big shit like building homeless shelters
They're not a modern day liberal, are you?
They can't be held accountable for the "modern day liberal", since they aren't one. Your switcheroo is poopy-doo