this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
555 points (95.3% liked)

Political Memes

8786 readers
3046 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
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy, and then refer to Sanders support on this map as 'empty land'.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy,

Isn't focusing on liberal and swing states exactly what you criticize the DNC for?

In fact, here's you explicitly praising the 50-state strategy.

So you're... imagining yourself?

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago) (1 children)

Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean's strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.

But I'm here less to disagree than I am to witness in awe how you dived into that user's history to dredge up something they said a full year ago, within 3 minutes of them posting their comment. I'm going to be very nice to you cause you fumkin scary lol

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago* (last edited 38 minutes ago) (1 children)

Lemmy has a search-by-user option. If you know political terms, it doesn't take long to dig up someone's opinions. Doubly so if you've had run-ins with them in the past and have a vague outline of their beliefs.

Looks more like that comment is supporting Dean’s strategy of flipping purple states, not deep red ones.

That's the opposite of what the 50-state strategy is, though. Trying to flip purple states is standard practice. You literally can't win a presidential election without it.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 38 minutes ago

Yeah I assumed both that you were doing some power search and that the two of you have a bit of history :P

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

Finish the sentence and close the loop: "and then refer to Sanders support as 'empty land.'" The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.

...and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.

And yeah, I still support my own point, now and from a year ago, because I don't dismiss the support as empty land.

What was the point of that?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 41 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago) (1 children)

Finish the sentence and close the loop: “and then refer to Sanders support as ‘empty land.’” The comment makes sense as a complete thought. By cutting out the conclusion you definitely make it confusing.

The clear implication is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is advocating the 50-state strategy when dismissing Sanders. Yet your criticism elsewhere is that your dreaded shitlib opposition is NOT advocating the 50-state strategy.

I'm sorry that you don't like being called out for kettle logic?

…and did you just go through a years worth of my post history for a screenshot? I know you go through and downvote my post history, but man.

lmao. Lemmy has a search option. All I had to do was type in '50 state' by user ZombiFrancis, since I vaguely remembered you simping for the 50 state strategy before. Sorry that you're on record?

I'm flattered that you think I can read tens-of-thousands of words of your comment history inside ten minutes, but I promise, I read fast, but not that fast.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 0 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those 'empty land' folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don't support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn't rocket surgery.

I think you don't understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 12 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

At any rate the criticism in both cases is the rejection of those ‘empty land’ folks. It is consistent. I supported it then and I support it now. What I don’t support is then turning around and dismissing those people and states as empty land. This isn’t rocket surgery.

No, it's not rocket surgery, yet you literally just restated the contradictory position without a hint of self-awareness. In one case, you acknowledge (and condemn) that your dreaded shitlib opposition aren't working off the 50-state strategy; in this case, you pretend that your dreaded shitlib opposition are working off the 50-state strategy so you have an excuse to call them hypocrites.

They, by your own description, are not 'turning around' and dismissing those folks, because by your own description, they don't support the 50-state strategy to begin with. But wouldn't it be awful if you had to argue your points on the actual merits instead of accusing your enemies of being hypocrites as a replacement for putting in any sort of thought or substance to your usual reflexively reactionary takes?

I think you don’t understand what I initially said in this thread here, and have taken that personally.

Considering that I'm the one in this thread who's objected to the map's misleading nature by pointing out that most of it is empty land?

Your attempts at plausible deniability are, uh, not very plausible. Nor is your usual extensive intellectual disingenuity impressive.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Why would the dems even want to win, when their co-workers are doing a much better job of passing the fascist policies that they all agree on? Why settle for kamalacaust when trump will go even further?

[–] nuko147@lemmy.world 31 points 4 hours ago

Sorry but voters don't get a say in USA. They only can choose between the 2 that their bosses have chosen.

[–] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 5 hours ago (11 children)

every comment in this thread along the lines of

“wElL yOu sHoUldVE vOtEd tHeN!!!1!”

fucking confounds me bc ig you guys either have a weird victim blaming kink or you have massively more faith in our electoral system’s veracity than i do.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Fucking Texas lmaoooo, O'Rourke??? Hahahahahaha

load more comments
view more: next ›