If we can't be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?
As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I've turned off reply notifications.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
506 points (84.6% liked)
Political Memes
11243 readers
1890 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
I sure as hell haven't played myself, considering I'm not an American!
But you've accidentally put it exactly right:
Yes, because Kamala didn't change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.
One person had the chance to change it all, but it was more important to ensure that Gaza continues to be erased.
You could have convinced millions of people to vote, or to change their vote, and you'd still have to convince many more to change the result. Or you could convince one single person, and it would have changed the result. Which is more realistic?