this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
706 points (93.5% liked)
Political Memes
8001 readers
3049 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
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.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
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
Well if you want fascists to keep winning you have to right attitude.
We have well over 50 years of evidence that attempts at top down change always backfire. If you don't want weak willed beholden people being nominated for leadership roles. Focus on filling all the offices beneath them with people who aren't.
Even had Sanders made it into office. He would have struggled continuously to accomplish anything with all the people underneath him.
It is a literal yet unfortunate fact that we must hold our noses and vote for anyone who stands a chance at beating a Republican in a national presidential election. Until such time as the parties have been taken over by people who wouldn't nominate someone like that.
Here's the hitch:
This strategy guarantees that the parties will keep nominating someone like that. (After all, they keep winning.) There's no mechanism for replacing the party leadership in it, nor any realistic scenario by which it would happen.
That's nonsense. Literally improving the pool of candidates will improve those selected. Further once enough are replaced, they will be able to accomplish things regardless of who's president.
There's literally no point in replacing the president if the congress opposes them.
Okay, which version actually happened over the past 50 years—yours or mine?
Mine. We focused on the top and lost everything including the legislative base.
In the late seventies the unions didn't feel that Democrats had done enough for them so they decided to punish carter. By not endorsing or supporting him. In the end we lost both Carter and the unions. If only They had focused on addressing the legislature that could have actually changed something. And not let Reagan get in power.
This isn't an isolated example. In fact, of the three branches of US government. The presidency is one of the least useful ones to hold. It's nice to hold. But if you want to actually pass laws Etc you need to legislature. And a court that isn't beholden's big business to instantly overturn it. With enough people in the legislature they can force the president to sign it with a veto-proof majority. The president can't do any of that. At best they can make me transition Smoother by agreeing to sign the legislation. But that's it. It's basic civics I guess they don't teach that in school anymore though.
This already happened in 2016, why am i the only one who remembers?!?!
Supporting one side of the Duopoly keeps us in the Duopoly forever.
Get over the democratic party, many already have
I'm an anarchist, but can acknowledge reality. Stop spouting nonsense and get over yourself. The rest of us have.
Nah this time the Neoliberals can get with the program or get out of the way.
Or do you hate democracy?
How are you gonna save democracy unless you vote for the people I tell you to vote for?