this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
489 points (83.9% liked)

Political Memes

5429 readers
1724 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

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.

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

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

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schema@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn't matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I'd vote for it over it over fascism.

this is why you lose so damn much

"This candidate isn't left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism". That is why democrats lose.

Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn't matter who the other candidate is.

That's a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn't matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.

"This candidate isn't left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism"

This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It's just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don't get votes by attacking voters.

Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe?

A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn't necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.

[–] schema@lemmy.world -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah. I'm done talking to you. The way you argue shows that you rather be calling people names than actually make arguments. If you can't be respectful in a discussion, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago

Your tantrum might be more convincing had I actually called you or anyone else a name. As for tone, read your own comments.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 1 points 2 days ago

Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.

And what is it called when there is only "one correct choice" on a ballot? It might have been the lesser evil, but I think the USA needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with the end of their democracy, if the only option is to vote one way.