this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
351 points (99.4% liked)

Political Memes

11499 readers
2981 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) 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.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I was writing a long comment about US immoral wars, economic sanctions, and CIA political assassination attempts on democratically elected leaders but what's the point. I am just so fucking tired of my own country. It is baffling that there are still people who are proud to be American.

[–] sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The last bastion of belief I had in this place was the idea that it responded to attempts to improve it and no matter what we did in the past we could make it better for people now.

I think the more optimistic a person is the more prone they are to going the exact same distance the other direction when they realize the nature of things. Whatever that toxic character trait is called that is what mine is.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

The last bastion of belief I had in this place was the idea that it responded to attempts to improve it and no matter what we did in the past we could make it better for people now.

"To make a more perfect union..."

That was the dream.

I think the more optimistic a person is the more prone they are to going the exact same distance the other direction when they realize the nature of things. Whatever that toxic character trait is called that is what mine is.

There's a phrase/concept for it that I can't remember or find, and it's driving me crazy.

[–] bampop@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I’m not a fan of optimism. Optimism and pessimism are both a form of vulgar fatalism — the belief that things are going to get better or worse irrespective of what we do. If I believed that, I wouldn’t get out of bed.

But I believe very much in hope. And hope is the belief that if you materially improve your circumstances, you will gain a new vantage point from which you will see things that you couldn’t see before.

https://lemmy.world/post/44108195/22599016

As bad as the USA has become, it's not a new thing but rather the culmination of decades of empire building, corruption and internal decay that it seems many of its people have been numb to, having been raised on optimistic nationalist propaganda all their lives. Optimistic complacency is not going to fix that, but hopeful action might. The USA is at a place where it must, and will, undergo significant change, for better or worse. The way I see it, it could go either way, but to be complacent and fail to take whatever action you can, is to concede defeat.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I refuse to yield the name America to the United States. It belongs to the whole damn continent.

[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club -4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does it? There's two continents named America, so who does it belong to? No other country on either of those continents has the word "America" in its name. Really stupid thing to be mad about amongst all the very valid things to be mad about.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow! Next you'll wipe your own ass!

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

psh look at this shitass shits with his own ass

[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Feel like there's a Carter Vail song in there

Thanks for the new artist. Dirt Man is right in my sweet spot too.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wait until you or Trump finds out it's an Italian name! We'll bomb someone else! It's "there are" by the way.

[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club -2 points 1 week ago

So? If it's Italian then it belongs to Italians not to anyone on either continent by your logic. And of course you're a pedant too because why not 🙄

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Definitely not my first time, unfortunately.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

With Iraq, most people were in favor at the time. This time, even that much can't be said, as the notion of war with Iran is immensely unpopular on both sides of the aisle.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I was younger during Iraq but I definitely remember ordinary people speaking out. It was mainly the media and politicians that made it seem so unanimous. I have a distinct memory of a friend sharing a meme criticizing the case for the invasion and not really understanding it.

Even though I didn't vote for dubya, I did have a similar feeling with Obama and his foreign policy. Not sure how much people remember but he positioned himself as a bit of an anti-war candidate initially.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was younger during Iraq but I definitely remember ordinary people speaking out.

Unfortunately, I remember polling.

Even though I didn’t vote for dubya, I did have a similar feeling with Obama and his foreign policy. Not sure how much people remember but he positioned himself as a bit of an anti-war candidate initially.

To my memory, he was anti-Iraq War and pro-Afghanistan War, and pursued a foreign policy consistent with that. It would have been strange if he had opted not to assist in Libya after our allies had already involved themselves in a civil war against a dictator; and the plan was to 'pivot' to a defensive position reinforcing allies in Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam) rather than intensifying interventionism, while decreasing the defense budget. Unfortunately, the whole ISIS mess started while that process was ongoing. He still managed to reduce the defense budget - a feat not seen since.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago

38 to 57 is far from unanimous. I'm just saying there were millions who opposed it from the beginning, but the media and congress made it seem like a tiny fringe position.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sure it's so unpopular that they keep refusing to vote on stopping him. It's not unpopular if they keep letting him do it.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Well, unpopular with the public. Popular with congress. A lot of Dem criticism amounts to, "he's doing the thing we want done incompetently!"

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 4 points 1 week ago

We just have dogshit public memory.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Like 70% of Russians support the war in Ukraine and escalation of force to meet their strategic goals for a negotiated peace: https://theconversation.com/as-war-in-ukraine-enters-a-5th-year-will-the-putin-consensus-among-russians-hold-275666

By contrast about 27% of Americans support the current US attacks on Iran: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/just-one-four-americans-support-us-strikes-iran-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-03-01/

[–] Mistic@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Ask people if they're for or against something that the government is doing in a country where you're not allowed to go against the government and you get the result of the majority agreeing? Shocker. That's like asking, "Are you a traitor or not?" Of course they're answering "no."

That's the same issue explained in the article you're citing. You have to look at questions that aren't direct.

Like other data from Levada (that your source is citing as a source for those 70%).

(BTW, the 70% aren't answering "are you for or against the war"? They're answering, "Do you support the army?" And we kinda have a law that doesn't really allow to say "no" to that Edit: and, that's also mentioned in the article)

Should Russia continue the war or start peace talks? (2026)

  • 61% peace talks
  • 30% continue war

Peace talks people have been the majority for almost the entirety of this "special military operation" (there's only 1 month in 2023 where it wasn't the case)

The number of people who want peace talks has also been steadily increasing. That's the consensus. The majority wants it to stop.

The 70% you're speaking of consists of 2 groups:

  1. The pro-war people
  2. The "yes" people

The first group is estimated at about 25-30%, these are the actual people who support the invasion, although recently, they seem to have become increasingly dissatisfied with the results and the government.

The second group will agree with everything that seems to fit the position of the government. They don't have an actual opinion. They're kind of like sheep: they're just trying to survive. Those are the people who take the stance of propaganda, and they are the reason propaganda works in the first place. That's ~40%

The group who is openly against war is estimated at about 15-25%, although its much more difficult to gauge it considering they are thought to be much less likely to answer questionnaires due to the risk of political prosecution.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

On one hand, I might dispute the precision of that 70%, considering the terror that Russian people live in of their government.

On the other hand, I wouldn't disagree in general terms.

Also, it's 27% in the USA? Fuck's sake, I'm surprised even MAGA is that fucking stupid. I guess we really aren't getting any lower than that for absolute unquestioning support for fascism.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

27% is actually pretty low considering there's about 30% that support Trump through anything.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm fairly certain that a solid 30% of Americans are fully prepared to openly identify as some combination of deliberately evil and/or stupid.

As long as it irritates liberals. They have forgotten leftists exist

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It’s stunning that they got 30% to say yes I’m a traitor. That’s deafening opposition under the circumstances.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I hope that Russian 70% number is high because people are lying. The article attributes it to independent pollsters running surveys in Russia. With the kind of skullduggery that goes on in Russian politics, you’ve got nothing to gain by taking chances.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'd like to give a sincere apology to every Russian I judged based on the actions of their country. Until the last few years, I truly did not appreciate the muted hell you were all living in, as well as the deep sense of apathy that comes from decades of watching things continue to get shittier and more corrupt while incompetence and propaganda crush every movement that tries to stop it.

I fully understand now how a large swath of the population can just give up and accept whatever horse shit they're served, not because they necessarily agree with it, but because they are so tired of trying to fight against it and losing every time.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I cannot tell you how many times my mother has said "I wish I could be conservative and a good person at the same time" in the last few years. We grew up in a cult where liberal=Satan

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 6 points 1 week ago

Fuck america and russia 😳

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

You dont need to include the israelis because 90% of them support the war they dragged America into.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Really got the roles swapped on this one.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

An unsurprising response from someone who bootlicks for Russian imperialism in Ukraine.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Buddy, the invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing, but I can also recognize that my country literally set the legal precedent Putin cited to the UN when he started it.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You argue that Ukraine is a puppet of the West and spread misinformation about Ukraine being 'forced' by the West not to negotiate after the massacres at Bucha were revealed, to my memory. Obviously, those poor helpless Ukrainians would have chosen to submit to genocide if it only wasn't for the West making them stay in the fight! Please ignore that the West initially offered Zelenskyy evacuation, giving up on the notion of defending Ukraine before it began, and it was only the choice of the Ukrainian people to continue that caused Western aid to enter at all.

And the idea that Putin offered any serious legal precedent for the invasion of Ukraine is fucking nonsense.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Of course citing article 51 is an un-serious legal justification for invading Ukraine. Just as it was when cited for the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq.

Ukraine isn't a puppet, they aren't being forced. That's your framing of what you claim is my position, not what I've ever said. They're doing the rational thing, given the circumstances. But the US is not supporting them out of some principled stance against invading sovereign countries. Multiple people across both the Biden and Trump governments have said, our goal in the region is to exhaust Russian military capacity.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course citing article 51 is an un-serious legal justification for invading Ukraine. Just as it was when cited for the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq.

You do fucking realize that most wars have Article 51 cited, precisely because the key component of Article 51 is that conflicts must be reported to the UN with cause, right? You realize there are an average of two citations of Article 51 a year since the 1950s, right?

Of course not. The USA invented citing Article 51 as a magic casus belli button. How could I have been so foolish as to not have seen it.

Ukraine isn’t a puppet, they aren’t being forced. That’s your framing of what you claim is my position, not what I’ve ever said.

This you, buddy?

image

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

literally right after that:

You’re the one saying “puppeteer”. Why frame it as either 0% agency or 100%? Clearly there are degrees here. Ukraine is its own actor and the US and it allies are more interested in using their leverage to push against Russia rather than for Ukraine. They can both be true.

Again, look at Afghanistan in the eighties. It too was its own polity. At the same time, US support and arms clearly had a substantial role in how events transpired, with consequences felt far more heavily by the civilians it was supposedly in aid of.

you really like cherry picking, don't you?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You’re the one saying “puppeteer”.

"I didn't SAY puppeteer, I just said that I saw Ukraine as lacking agency beyond that which is decided for them by The West 🥺"

I never know if people like you actually believe what you're saying, or if you know it's bullshit but can't resist any angle to simp for genocide.

Why frame it as either 0% agency or 100%?

"Well, maybe the Ukrainians don't want to be genocided a little bit" isn't really much of a rebuttal to the idea of you being a bootlicker who regurgitates imperialist propaganda.

Again, look at Afghanistan in the eighties. It too was its own polity. At the same time, US support and arms clearly had a substantial role in how events transpired, with consequences felt far more heavily by the civilians it was supposedly in aid of.

"Afghanistan deserved genocide by Russian arms too" isn't much of a fucking rebuttal either, bootlicker.

No response to the Article 51 issue, I note. Did you decide that was a point a bit too stupid even for you to champion?

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm not making the points you seem to think I'm making. Don't know what to say, honestly.

Also, here's the text of Article 51:

Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

Article 51

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m not making the points you seem to think I’m making.

This you, buddy?

but I can also recognize that my country literally set the legal precedent Putin cited to the UN when he started it.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes? I'm arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the "right of self-defense" as pretext to invade other countries. I don't see the contradiction you seem to see?

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries.

  1. The use of 'self-defense' as an excuse to invade other countries long predates Article 51.

  2. Article 51 was invoked several times in blatantly unjustified wars by other states before the US invoked it in '64.

I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?

Because you have no understanding of the history you purport to parrot.

[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bunch of doomer fuckwads in this thread acting like the US is as far gone as Russia and there's nothing we can do. You're the fucking problem you apathetic cum socks. Get off the internet, there are hundreds of volunteer groups, community action groups, and local governments taking all the action they can to resist. Either start resisting, or shut the fuck up.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, posting a meme and resisting are not mutually exclusive. Five minutes to post "Jesus Christ this is a dark path we're going down" online hardly precludes action in meatspace.

[–] zeejoo@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 week ago

I'm commenting on the comments in this thread, like I said, not your meme.

load more comments
view more: next ›