this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
733 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

7441 readers
4477 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 109 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Trump is no root. He's a long festering symptom. Of something that's been going on in America for more than a hundred years at this point. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else eventually.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 37 points 3 days ago

The fact that it happened twice and will happen against despite whatever he and AOC are trying to do are the clearest indicator of this symptom.

[–] ewpt3ch@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The Union won, long live the Confederacy! This timeline sucks.

[–] oxysis@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago

Is it too late to change what timeline we picked at birth?

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think about this often... What if Trump is the best outcome? He's a genuine fucking incompetent idiot.

That's the head of fascism in America right now. Better him than someone just as evil, but also intelligent and competent, I suppose.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago

If the Dems had followed their own primary rules we'd have just witnessed the end of Bernie's second term and people would be clamoring for term limits to be lifted so he could run again.

But Dems, ironically, aren't actually democratic.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And gore was allowed to win

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago

Same could be said about Corbyn in the UK but instead he was couped and now we have the red Tories taking money from those most vulnerable to keep the tax cuts for the rich.

[–] hakase@lemm.ee 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Trumpism is far more preferable to the DNC than Bernie is.

[–] FinnFooted@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is the exact problem. The DNC get to watch Trump enact terrible legislation. The electorate will swing back to them. They then will then repeal all the legislation they don't benefit from and will look like the good guys. But they'll keep all the legislation that helps politicians pocket more money and humm and haw about bipartisanship making it difficult to change things.

They'd rather do this than have a shift within the party that causes the senior politicians to lose their crowns.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

We've seen our last free and fair presidential election. These ass hats aren't going anywhere. They're gonna spend the next three and a half years purging anyone who won't brown nose.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago
[–] Mouette@jlai.lu 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

In an alternate reality this guy didn't went through Democrats Primary but run on his own, creating his own political party and team and in the long run I'm sure it would have actually paid off. Even if he would not have won any election for years this is about being able to share your narrative free of any outside influence.

[–] spooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lol, even a pipe dream calls this unrealistic.

I love Bernie, but he would have not been successful if he went third party and probably would have gotten trump elected with an actual majority in 2016.

[–] Mouette@jlai.lu 3 points 3 days ago

Even then you can't present yourself as an alternative as long as you compromise with Democrat. How it has been done in France is a new party was created that refuse any compromise, they started with ridiculous number but kept growing election on election as the traditionnal left kept compromising each time they won. And now 20 years later the tables have turned and the old left party is basically dead on presidential election

[–] WuceBrillis@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Trying to form a third party while the election laws are still as they are, is just a big fat waste of life.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wish that was true, but in 2016, Bernie's loss was not due to DNC fuckery; while in 2020, when it arguably was, Trumpism had already taken root. And as Corbyn in the same period showed, even populist left-wing leadership does not guarantee left-wing electoral victory.

Our problems are much deeper rooted, unfortunately.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 58 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Bullshit. If the DNC had not been in the bag for Hillary in 2016, it would have been an entirely different primary. Her whole campaign was based on her "electability" and how dangerous it would be to put Bernie up against Trump. Between the superdelegates, the bribery, the caucus malfeasance, and the blatant lies, Hillary and the DNC did everything but literally stab the man in the actual back.

And that's fine. The Democrats can pick their candidate however they want. The party leadership thought that Hillary was a better choice. But there's been an effort to rewrite history to absolve the party leadership, many of whom are still in positions of power ten years later. The DNC fucked America, and they are as responsible as anyone for the disasters of the last, let's say, 50 years.

Maybe Bernie would have lost to Trump. Maybe Hillary would have beaten Bernie in a fair primary. We can't possibly know those things, because that's not what happened. We do know that the primary was not a fair election, and we do know that Hillary shat the bed against Trump.

But if it had been Sanders in a national debate, making the arguments, giving impassioned speeches, drumming up supporters and energizing the left, then at the very least Trumpism would not have gone unchallenged. There would have been resistance. Instead, Hillary and the Democratic leadership let go of the rope and now we're in the middle of a coup d'etat.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I was very active in the political scene then. It couldn't have been more obvious that msnbc, npr, and the broader DNC was setting up Hillary for a coronation.

She was already pushed aside in 2008 and it wasn't going to happen again. Hence why they cut back immensely on the number of DNC sanctioned debates.

2020 was a different beast in some ways. Democrats are not agile. They do not adapt to the moment. They play on seniority, and boy did they really play on seniority this time.

Biden held a grudge against Obama because he told Biden to hold off and give Hillary her turn. So here we go again with the coronation.

Combine the fact that Warren and Sanders split the progressive coalition while Michael Bloomberg joined the race to derail progressive candidates by spending $1 billion of his own money (unprecedented), and the rest is history.

I ultimately did vote for Hillary and Biden but the game being played couldn't have been more obvious.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

We were on the verge of greatness, we were THIS CLOSE

[–] Bunnylux@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sweaty, it done took root. These ideas are not new.

[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

*sweety.

The word you used does not mean what you think it means.

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

Cool story sweaty

[–] Bunnylux@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Are you ignorant of the meme, or just an annoying pedant? Find out in the next episode!

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Not sure how much difference it would make.

He would need 218 Progressives in the House, 50 Progressives in the Senate, unless there is a majority of Progressives, I doubt there will be any fundamental changes.

Probably some good executive orders tho.