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
The other four didn't vote because there wasn't a party against genocide.
Single issue voter is still committed to being uncommitted.
The other four didn't think this through because only one party had a subset of their coalition who opposed genocide, and also opposed 2 other genocides: the one Russia perpetrates against Ukraine, and climate change (leaving aside things like, you know, women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights... And not as a case-in-point the internal genocide of poor people when 50,000 Americans will now die from being dropped from Medicaid thanks to a bill that only ~~Republicans~~ the cliff-divers would have passed).
Fully agree with Nina Turner. If you don't wanna do politics, you blindly leave major decisions over your life to others, who - as we can see world-wide - don't necessarily have your interest at heart. Democracy, human rights, freedom or any other such ideas require a populace to vigilantly fight for them and not let those with opposed agendas undermine them.
But that analogy afterwards is simply dishonest on many levels.
Firstly, if you are talking about "harm reduction" or the "lesser of two evils", ice cream is hardly a fair representation of the lesser evil.
Secondly this mixes in non-political people, who do not participate in the democratic process with moral objectors and the duped.
Thirdly: It diverts equal blame (literally in the response) to those groups and to the voters, who actually want the bigger evil or the powerful actors enacting it. This presupposes some moral value on active vs. passive behavior, which can be argued.
And lastly: Even if we find a fitting ice-cream substitute like throwing one of the passengers under the still moving bus, or - how another user suggested - braking before driving off the same cliff: The two who voted for that lesser evil also fight the four voters who are against evil harder, than they are fighting the ones who want the bigger evil. Why? Because they'd rather still drive off the cliff than not. And then they turn around and dishonestly shame the anti-driving-off the-cliff crowd for wanting to speed up instead. That is not a very good strategy.
Are they the same? No. But please keep your arguments honest, or you might get the exact opposite reaction from people, than you are hoping.
If you don’t have ranked choice voting you do not live in a democracy
Til that only Australians and the Irish live in democracy. It's used in other places, ofc, but on smaller scales.
Not to say I'm against it or anything, I'm all for it, but your statement is a bit exaggerated.
Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.
That’s not democracy.
Ranked choice means it's easier for voters, but when it's not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven't voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn't stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I'd like to have ranked choice, but it's insane to say it's not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So.. Z doesn't always win.
This one's much simpler than that; one party will throw people I love into a concentration camp in the next four years, one party will not. I will vote for those who will not. The rest is just bullshit.
You sound like one of those dangerous shitlibs, not wanting people to be thrown into concentration camps. Don't you know that the lives of the likes of you and me are acceptable sacrifices so that the wannabe revolutionaries can (checks notes) do nothing but feel really smug about how superior they are to The Establishment?
There's a part of me that thinks these people fell for very well crafted propaganda that kept them away from the voting booth and, like Magats, they keep doubling down instead of admitting they got duped and moving on.
In a binary system where my choices are Nazis or not Nazis, anyone who comes along and tells me not voting is the best option is my fucking enemy.
They did. They were dumb enough to fall for it and now we have concentration camps.
Yeah the genocide angle is just "both sides" with sprinkles. It's a really effective misdirection.
I had people unironically tell me that Kamala Harris was no better than Hitler, and that she & Trump were the same but just did the exact same harm in "different areas," which is why it looked like they were any different policy-wise. 💀
Since both support Genocide I don't think it's fair to say it's nazis vs non-nazis. It's more like genocide over there vs genocide maybe here and there. That's assuming that the Republicans will actually go full authoritarian dictatorship which isn't necessarily going to happen. A lot of people are speculating that things will happen that didn't last time Trump was in charge. It definitely could happen, but I don't think it's as likely as people are making out. Trump would have to convince all of the keys to power to abandon democracy, and that hasn't happened yet. He is already getting push back for certain things, not to mention braking up with Elon.
Anyway I sure am glad I don't live in the USA. Although honestly my own country is having its own issues. The supposedly left wing party seem to have decided they have the same level of support for trans people that the right wing one does, or at least their leader is willing to follow the conservatives on that issue. I almost regret voting for him now.
That's assuming that the Republicans will actually go full authoritarian dictatorship which isn't necessarily going to happen.
It has happened, is continuing to happen, and will get worse. ICE now has a large budget than most militaries and Trump is exploring ways to "deport" American citizens (probably to concentration camps). They're exploring ways to essentially make migrant farm workers slaves. The supreme Court just made it harder for judges to pause executive orders. The US (of which I'm a citizen) is fucked.
this sounds very utilitarian. you known who else was utilitarian? thanos!
Reminds me of this really annoying "I don't do politics" advert that was airing on British TV two decades ago. Like, I'm surprised the ad didn't end with a punch to the face.
This is excellent thanks for sharing