this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
1219 points (97.0% liked)
Political Memes
11651 readers
2389 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
Dems know exactly how they could get a massive landslide in the midterms, and are choosing not to do it.
If they win by too much they woukd lose all their excuse to work against the people.
It would ruin them.
Why did they pass the ACA when we gave them 58 senators? Why did they ban lobby and PAC campaign funds in 2003? Why did Biden audit the rich? Why did Obama enforce immigrant holding time limits against the private prison industry's wishes?
Seems to me we just haven't given them more than 48 senators in over 13 years and now everything sucks.
Oh yes the ACA, Romney's healthcare plan lmao
So you oppose giving healthcare to 70 Million people? And btw, the DNC plan was closer to German Healthcare until a lone independent required to reach 60 votes forced the current version.
Lmfao you're such a bad faith moron.
You argued against expanding healthcare and somehow that makes me bad faith?
It originally had a public option, which wasn't in Romney's healthcare plan. That needed just one more vote to pass, but midterm voters decided to give it many fewer votes instead.
That's cause they're trying to lose on purpose. Their corporate donors told them to.
Paid opposition party.
No, that's the opposite of the truth. They're a paid jobber party. They don't oppose the Republicans, they job them. You know, like in wrestling when a wrestler is paid to lose a fight on purpose.
The best thing we can do to fuck up their plans and screw with the billionaires is vote for the Democrats and persuade others to do the same. That's the thing they least want us to do. They want bad PR and low voter turnout. But if we register with the party, go to local primaries to support socialist candidates who actually believe in improving things, and then help those candidates win (and keep the Rs out by voting for the jobbers when we have to), then the billionaires are fucked because the true believers in the party, even the libby ones, will raise taxes. And Trump won't be able to lower them.
I can get behind primaries pushing out the establishment and neo-liberals, but honestly if we don't succeed in that you'll find me hard pressed to vote blue no matter who.
I'm guessing that's because you think voting for a candidate supports them in more than one way?
The first way that voting for a candidate supports them is that it helps them beat the opposing candidate, the R fascist. So you're giving them the "better than actual Nazis" award, I'm sure you agree.
But I'm guessing you think voting for a candidate gives them support in more ways than just that one?
It's more of neo-liberal Dems are fascist, they just have a nicer visage about it as they provide more of the boots.
You shouldn't round so imprecisely.
I'm just curious, where in the realm of conservatism is their views acceptable and not acceptable? I'm not confused but many people seem to give neo-liberals a free pass when that's the ideology of Thatcher and Reagan. Becoming mainstream in the Democrat party while the Republican party tilted further into conservatism, especially after Gingrich said essentially no more compromise with Democrats.
I don't understand the question; your syntax is too confusing.
When is conservatism acceptable?
When it's trying to conserve something good. For example, I'm learning the local Indigenous language because when it comes to Indigenous issues, I'm a conservative. I believe in preserving traditional culture. Language is part of that, I want to help keep the language alive. Earlier this week I learned how to perform a ceremony to talk to the Rainbow Serpent. And I'm a proponent of land back.
All of that is conservatism and it's good.
Conservation, that's what you're looking at. That's not conservatism, conservatism is a political ideology that is about free markets and maintaining power structures that are have been or are in place. Of a ruling class over the working class to put it succinctly. There's more to it than that and I REALLY recommend you read up on what conservatism really is and what neo-liberalism really is.
Conservationism does not equal to conservatism. It's sounds like you're confounding the two to be equal or part of one another and that's not the case. You can be a conservationist and most political ideologies.
I believe in traditional cultural values such as respecting Elders, the Indigenous family structure, trans inclusivity, and a reciprocal relationship with the spirits. I want to go back to the good old days and take our modern technology (but not AI, fuck AI) back to the past with us. I want to make Australia great again.
All of this newfangled capitalism, wage labour, homophobia, misogyny, I hate it. We've got to go back to traditional family values.
Come on, doesn't that sound at least a little conservative?
No, it doesn't. Again, READ UP ON WHAT MODERN DAY CONSERVATISM IS.
Family values isn't conservatism, that's just being a decent human being. Edit: Unless that's one where the male figure head holds all the power and such then that's conservative. If it's egalitarian then no, that's not.
Being against bigotry is denial there's a hierarchy and out groups the law binds but does not protect.
Being anti-capitalist is certainly NOT conservatism.
Again, read on it, you're misinformed.
I'm of course aware of Edmund Burke's role as the father of conservatism, and his goal of preserving the hierarchical structure of the monarchy by replacing divine right with generational wealth. Indeed, the overarching aim of the conservative platform is the restoration of the monarchy de facto if not de jure.
But I assumed we were using some other definition of conservatism, because you called the party of taxing billionaires conservative. The Democrats have many, many flaws. But voting for them will not bring America closer to monarchy. Voting neutrally, which is to say abstaining, is what will allow that ongoing process to accelerate. The neutral voters are in My estimation conservative by a Burkian reckoning, for they aid in the revival of the monarchy.
Taxing billionaires is not enough, they should not exist.
Edit: You're also conflating liberalism with leftism and the Democrats being left, which it is not.
I agree, we should guillotine all the billionaires.
And the Trump presidency is harming our ability to organise for a revolution, because we're too busy reacting to his bullshit. We need to use our votes to buy more time to organise for a revolution. For example, take Palestine. During Biden's presidency, there were student encampments, we were moving the needle, politicians were starting to listen. And then you morons elected Trump, and now we're too busy with No Kings to do Free Palestine. You lot kneecapped the movement to divest from Israel.
Trump is just the USA unwrapped, it's all the horrors without the paint on it. I'm hoping him being elected will get those on the fence to realize the system is bad and start voting in primaries.
As for your beliefs, if you want to incorrectly label yourself conservative, go ahead. Just know it's incorrect and you're choosing the sides of Reagan, Thatcher, Bushes, and Trump doing so.
The USA was always fascist, ask any person of color or marginalized group, especially LGBT+ people from the 60s-90s. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not paid attention.
My partner is a disabled trans nonbinary otherkin mixed-race American. @Mechoselachia@multiverse.soulism.net what do you think, is life worse under Trump? How are your SNAP food stamps since 2024?
My neighbors are being disappeared off the streets, food is more expensive and more rotted, and a little less than half my blood relatives argue for my genocide. Back when there was at least a little friction in the government against the fascist factions, it felt like there was a guarantee of a minimum standard of living that just doesn't exist now.
Is it easier or harder for you to organise the communist revolution after @beardededsquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone's side decided to abstain in 2024?
Voted Harris jackass. I did the "right" thing and compromised myself. Keep your neo-liberal apologia to yourself.
I have LGBT+ and POC friends who are also on food stamps. It's always been bad. No one cares about them and I'm tired of people pretending Democrats do.
I'm just puzzled that there are a not insignificant number of people on this site who literally believe that Democrats keep losing elections on purpose.
Just stop.
Honestly, I think it's more foreign psyops than anything else. The Lemmy developers are devout Tankies who openly support the invasion of Ukraine, Chinese takeover of Taiwan and Hong Kong, etc. There is proven tankie bot activity and the majority of downvotes are from a handful of IP addresses.
The CCP both supports the Trump admin and at the same time violent insurgency in the USA, Europe, and other nations around the world, because they don't care how we destroy ourselves as long as it gets done.
There are only 45 dem senators and a minority in the house. They can't choose to do a single fuckin thing but block certain bills and force others to vote.
You do realize they could be campaigning on these things. Making noise, drawing more attention to Trumps policy failures.
Maybe it's just the reporting of it, but the only person I actively heard making a big stink within the party was David Hogg. The party had a big issue with his approach that they used a technicality to remove him from his position in the party.
David Hogg clearly didn't care enough about his ideals to participate in the redo election for his seat. To clarify, though, the other DNC chairmen didn't oust him on a technicality, the woman he won against did because she rightfully filed a complaint about the gender segregated pairing of the election which violated DNC rules.