this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
1130 points (94.2% liked)

Political Memes

5510 readers
2236 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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Don’t worry, voters will definitely hand both houses to the Republicans in 2026 if she’s elected and they’ll take their orders directly from Trump.

Because that’s what always happens.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 79 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I just hope Trump is dead by 2026.

There could always be some other MAGA asshole to fill the void, but the dissolution of Trump's cult of personality would be a crippling blow.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (2 children)

There's always an asshole. Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump. And our electoral system and goldfish-memory population will continually put them into power.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Newt, Mitch and the others only have their local GOP cult, they don't have the national cult that the orange turd does.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, Rush, Hannity, and Alex Jones & The Turds.

There will always be an asshole. That's the entire reason we even have government in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

That's not what happened in 2022, at least not quite. Don't underestimate Trump's ability to insert himself and mess up whatever easy wins the GOP would otherwise have.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SennheiserHD600@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago (6 children)

she could be a great president if she issues an arms embargo against Israel

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, that's a good looking sandwich

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You and I have very different ideas of what a good sandwich looks like. I'd still vote for it though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Too god damn true. That's mainly why I voted for Harris on my main-in ballot. She's not Trump, that's the primary reason.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yep. She's not my ideal candidate, but she is better in every single way when compared to Trump.

Since it's easier to break things than to maintain, fix, or create, the choice is obvious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Absent of any anti-Trump arguments, I'd like to hear the case for Kamala being a truly great President. A few policy positions she, in particular, is notable for?

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Start with what makes a good president? Obviously there's the issues and all that which people focus on, but that's subject to debate. Objectively, some qualities are definitely good, like being good at both urgent and non-urgent decision making, good at managing/organizing/handling chaos, capable of outsmarting adversaries, being a unifying force rather than a divisive one. Just to name a few. So let's look at those:

  • Decision-making: She's relatively young compared to recent presidents, definitely a bit more in touch with modern reality and less tied to the old ways of doing politics. She's faced a tough choice with her running mate, and while Walz has been criticized by some, given the short timeframe it's clear she at least didn't fuck it up. Her debate prep clearly succeeded, and she's avoided any scandals despite clearly Republicans trying very hard to find them. All of these show a record of decent to good decisions.
  • Managing, etc Obviously her campaign started in the midst of chaos, and there were a lot of fears regarding that transition. And it went probably better than anyone expected, with everyone quickly gaining confidence in her.
  • Outsmarting adversaries She did a better job at this in the debate than any candidate in my memory.
  • Unifying force Again I'll refer to her getting everyone behind her after Biden dropped, while also keeping Biden's support. Don't underestimate how unlikely that seemed before it happened.

I'll avoid comparing Trump who is obviously severely deficient in all of these respects. But I could go further and say she obviously compares favorably to Biden too, and compared to Obama, I'd give her an edge on outsmarting adversaries and managing, and Obama probably gets the edge on the other 2. But we'll see.

[–] Zeke@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago (11 children)

She used to be a prosecutor. That means she can see things from both sides and look at things objectively and not make rash decisions. It's a good quality for a president.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (7 children)

She will most likely not be a great president, but could be a good one. If Biden wasn't so poor on the Middle East, he would have been a great one, from a policy perspective.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Biden never was going to be a great president, lacking a a majority in both houses means you burn up too much political capital to get anything done that doesn't already have broad bipartisan support. And with how divided politics is today compared to any point in history where we had a great president, there is no such thing as bipartisan today.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Tire@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I’m fine with how Afghanistan went. The military would have dragged it out for another 10 years. I’d much rather have a suboptimal quick withdrawal.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Toneswirly@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (6 children)

"Objectively" is such a fun way to describe what will always be a divisive position of power. Was any one president considered objectively good?

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, Al Gore was voted president, and he didn't make any objectionable decisions while George Bush was living in his house and working in his office.

[–] KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I do wonder what the world would look like if Al Gore had been president.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Grant's administration was deeply imperfect - corruption ran deep - but he eradicated the first KKK. I feel like that's an objective good, and anyone who disagrees isn't worth listening to.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago (7 children)

"Voting for the Lesser Evil is still Evil"

Makes sense.

I throw out all my old uneaten perfectly edible still in the packaging food that hasn't expired yet instead of donating it to a local food bank because if I can't give the nutrition-insecure folks a gourmet dinner, why should I even fucking bother?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SomeKindaName@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A ham sandwich can be eaten. Eating is good. That's 1 pt ham sandwich, 0 gop. Ham sandwich does more for Americans than gop.

[–] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The rich can also be eaten.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And that's cool...

As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don't yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they're trying to help trump.

That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.

It's just completely nonsensical to hear all the "moderates" claim they'd vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.

There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she'd lock this election down.

If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right...

With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.

[–] Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social 9 points 1 month ago (25 children)

If it's not been posted already...

https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/

Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his 'started no wars' con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.

But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.

We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they'd share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.

So we're left with the second.

Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (8 children)

The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.

They wouldn't lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations...

It doesn't cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone's slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.

The DNC isn't being run to get Dems in office, it's a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.

Just never one who's political policy matches Dem voters.

Look at current DNC leadership, it's not people that know how to win elections, it's just whoever can bring in the most donations.

The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Do people really put the veggies underneath the cheese and the meat? Have I been sandwiching wrong my whole life?

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Same with a burger. Your lettuce should be dry (pat it with a paper towel if you must) and put it as the bottom layer. This creates a moisture barrier that stops your bread/bun from turning into a soggy mess.

On a sandwich, the cheese should be on the other side for the same reason. Keep all the wet stuff from turning your bread into slop.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›