this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
834 points (95.5% liked)

Political Memes

8786 readers
2629 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.

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
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 73 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

With the current political climate USA is in, it might weaken him to get endorsements from the establishment.

Their masks are coming off. Voting in line with republicans and being vocal against anything progressive.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 days ago (8 children)

I was thinking the other day after NPR mentioned Elon's recent spat that he could fund other candidates in mid terms. If he endorsed Democrats that might do more harm than good lol.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 128 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 28 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Find me a politician on the US national stage who isn't funded by AIPAC.

Massie doesn't count.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee, AOC (though she's compromised with the party leadership on Israel's genocide to an abhorrent degree nonetheless), Ayanna Presley, Cory Bush (successfully primaried over it) and Jamaal Bowman (ditto), and everyone else not listed here.

They're a small minority for sure, but they exist and pretending otherwise just feeds into the manipulative establishment "electability" narrative that they use to poison the public against progressive candidates.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 22 points 5 days ago

I find it incredibly ironic and enlightening that the one Jewish congressperson I can name off the top of my head is on this list.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

New York resident here. Hakeem Jeffries has always sucked. As does Kathy Hochul. Complete garbage.

[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 79 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Why the fuck is schumer still in office?! Hes the very definition of a dickless, useless democrat. Fuck that guy, just get lost useless boomer, let someone who gives a shit take the seat.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 46 points 5 days ago

AOC will probably primary him. Schumer is at something like a 2 decade low in approval while AOC polls much higher state-wide.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 5 days ago (4 children)

He's WORSE than useless. Not only is he a Manchin level shill for fossil fuel interests, he's said that his job is to "keep the left Pro Israel", a statement so blatant that he'd call out anyone ascribing that sentiment to him for using the antisemitic "dual loyalty" trope.

There's literally REPUBLICANS in Congress right now that are less awful than he is! Imagine that: the Senate leader of what the Dem leadership pretends to be the Left being worse than some actual fascists 🤬

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 20 points 5 days ago

money. same as the rest who vote pro-fascist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] deddit@lemmy.world 64 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

Okay, just hear me out for a second.... I completely agree they should endorse him, but rather than just saying they are irreverent (though this may actually be the case) I would like to know in clear and concise terms WHY they are waiting/failing to endorse the man whom was chosen by the people. I think knowing why they won't endorse him is very relevant to the discussion. Eith

TLDR; their silence is very telling.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago (10 children)

I don't know about the rest of them, though I certainly have my suspicions, but with gillibrand it's very clearly just racism. That interview she gave was extremely telling.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's rich people. The reason is rich people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

They've given interviews. According to them, Mamdani hasn't yet proven his viability among the general population, he only won a primary where 15% of the DNC participated with a plurality vote of 43%. Furthermore, some of them represent districts that hardlined against Mamdani such as neighborhoods in the southeastern part of Brooklyn. Mamdani won Brooklyn overall but the difference between neighborhoods he won and lost were very stark.

I agree with you, though, that they should endorse Mamdani. Any concerns about his type of socialism can be easily quelled with Mamdani's clear opposition to "communist countries".

Not endorsing Mamdani is just asking to split the vote and give Republicans the chance to fuck everything up.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 28 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I don't like 'viability among gen pop'. It's like assessing his electability. Doesn't matter, he was chosen in a democratic primary vote. He's the democratic candidate for mayor. If they expect us to fall in line and vote blue, they need to fall in line and endorse blue.

Rich fucks

[–] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"electability" was always a sham. It is exclusively used by millionaire news pundits and NYT writers to tell primary voters not to vote for the candidate with the policy that immediately improves the material conditions of the most people because of an imaginary cohort of "centrists" and "moderate republicans" who are terrified of anything good like free healthcare, child care, college, rent-control, and taxes on billionaires, but will totally vote for the version of those policies that will help nobody.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That kind of reasoning makes sense to not endorse him in a run off.

But in the general election? He's got your party's nomination, so back your party. Your Cuomo boy got primaried, get over it. (Edit: the 'your' in this sentence applies to the party members listed in the OP, not the commenter and/or OP)

This is just money talking. Rich people don't like the ones that look like they won't bend to them. Hopefully he continues to not.

Also, this is yet another reason I don't associate with political parties. Super not a fan of them. It's the system we got, and I do vote with the dual party power structure in mind, but you'll never see me signed up in one.

[–] pretzelz@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Just looked up the bright blue square on Brooklyn - it's Borough Park: "home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities outside Israel, with one of the largest concentrations of Jews in the United States"

Hmm! I don't think it's his policies they are against...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Not projection, just a flat out lie.

[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 44 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you primary these establishment fucks out you don't have this problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Godric@lemmy.world 53 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Did those politicians say "vote blue no matter who" or was that people online in an effort to avoid gestures broadly?

Genuine question, they've always been massive disappointments who would benefit from that.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 47 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (15 children)

I specifically said "vote blue no matter who", because while yes, there are Establishment Democrats that exist, Extermination Republicans are quite objectively fucking worse.

Because if Fascist 47 wasn't in office, we could at least try to get shit done, instead of putting out 17+ daily fires.

[–] OCATMBBL@lemmy.world 32 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Rebrand: Vote Blue, because what else can you do?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 5 days ago

Add them to the list.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (3 children)

This is one of those situations where not certifying the guy and just getting out of the way is an absolutely terrible idea if you enjoy your position. He got young voters out. The same people who are pretty decent at getting out and organizing for protests and with the way things are going these fish may grow teeth. Maybe not sharks, though no one messes with piranhas all the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Ah, but if you said anything against the blue (but not in favor of red), you were the vile, evil... CENTRIST! (I.e. a label just applied to you to single you out for not blindly agreeing with the zeitgeist.) Seriously, the front page of Lemmy for a good while was just toxic political "VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO" and if you didn't agree, you were just a problem.

[–] SparroHawc@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 days ago (4 children)

The critical part of 'vote blue no matter who' is the voting part. That's the game plan short-term when it's election season.

That does not preclude criticizing the incumbents. Or even the candidates. But no matter how you feel about them, you vote for them to stave off misery, and encourage everyone around you to do the same.

Not voting for them sends a message, but it's the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP. Stop fascism in its tracks and vote blue. Fight for actual progress by doing what you can to forward actual progressive candidates and policies. Like NYC is doing right now.

It boggles my mind how people seem to be incapable of wrapping their head around that concept, and instead continue to insist that we shouldn't be voting for DNC candidates because


uh - it'll make things better??? Somehow??? At this point, the willful ignorance is starting to smack of sealioning.

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Not voting for them sends a message, but it’s the wrong message - and that message is that the populace prefers the GOP

Hard disagree on that. That's assuming the intentions of the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us

If you're argument is that we need to be doing what's right and pushing for progress, then why is that cast as something ONLY the "blue" can do? I don't know how old you are to see how many times the "blue" has absolutely failed at their job, failed the people, but for no other reason than they're in the right party, they keep getting voted in. But I've seen several "blue" presidents do anywhere from fuckall to the bare minimum in terms of progress/change.

There are other options to vote for that don't just include the GOP as you seem to suggest. The US isn't supposed to be just a 2 party system. It's supposed to be dynamic; these parties are supposed to die off when they no longer represent the people. If you want progress and change, but keep doing the same thing that doesn't seem to be all that progressive.... are you making any progress?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

In the general election, that's what you should do. If establishment Dems don't back their nominee, it doesn't change how you should vote.

People who didn't vote blue in 2024 actively chose a fascist regime. Anyone who doesn't vote blue in all the upcoming elections (with a Fetterman exception, but he should be primaried) is endorsing the MAGA movement.

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Hard disagree. If we continue the narrative that the US is a 2 party system, actively rejecting and backing other parties in fear "the bad guy will win" (a sentiment and view shared with the Dem/Rep parties), then we've entered a endless loop that only as we've seen over the decades, is a race to the bottom. We elected Biden because we didn't want Trump and largely for no other reason. That's not a good reason. And Biden even commented that he was perhaps too old (his words).

And it's a fallacy, shared by the Dem/Rep, to fear-monger the "If you don't vote for MY party, then it's voting for the other party (the bad guys)". This was a false narrative that was spread this election and several before it, to prevent anyone else from opposing the status quo. A vote for 'not my party' is not a 'vote for the other party'. If I can't vote how I want (speaking broadly here for everyone), then my vote doesn't matter. And if my vote doesn't matter, then I'm not being represented. And if you're going to argue that, I'd like to point to the huge number of eligible voters who consistently don't vote. If we cast non-votes as a vote of no confidence, we'd see a big change in things. But doing that means Dem/Rep would lose the seesaw swings in power they have come to enjoy.

So no, you shouldn't just throw your vote blindly behind any side. Especially because the internet thinks you should (and again, that goes for Dem/Rep alike).

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

When the major party candidates include a literal fascist building concentration camps and sending people to torture prisons without due process and a wildly imperfect opposition party candidate, you for against the literal fascist.

People who chose not to vote for Harris because they weren't "excited" to vote for her chose not to stand in the way of Trump, and they are responsible for him winning the election.

If you didn't vote for Harris, you have blood on your hands and should be losing sleep over it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

It's always been the same fear mongering strategy dems and Repubs have always used. Today it's just very effective.

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

Thankfully they self-identify as those who need to be replaced

Saves a little time

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 days ago

Hopefully they all become irrelevant sooner or later.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 4 days ago

VBNMW was always "we want to give you a shitty candidate, you'll vote for it and you'll like it."

load more comments
view more: next ›