this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
463 points (80.7% liked)
Political Memes
11582 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
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%