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

Political Memes

8752 readers
3232 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
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 130 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Huge correlation with AIPAC being their top donors, fyi.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 28 points 2 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 50 points 2 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 2 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)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

the last they want is non-aligned democrat to israel.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 78 points 2 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 45 points 2 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 22 points 2 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 2 days ago

money. same as the rest who vote pro-fascist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 72 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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)
[–] deddit@lemmy.world 66 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 30 points 2 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 16 points 2 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 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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.

collapsed inline media

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 27 points 1 day 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 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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)
[–] pretzelz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 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...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Yeah it should come as no surprise, he's very openly pro-palestine and during the primaries the media framed a perfect picture of Mamdani for Palestine and Cuomo for Israel.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Godric@lemmy.world 54 points 2 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 49 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 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 33 points 2 days ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (7 children)

So what were we doing for the last 50 years?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fascist 47 hasn't been the president that long, and anyone with a brain knew he would tear this country down.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (5 children)

How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents? Genuine question bc all my brain says is that the dem potus' don't want change. 45/47 was able to really rock the boat the wrong way, why couldn't 46 make this much change in the other direction? 44?...

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How was he able to do that? How does he have so much more power than democratic presidents?

Dems and the Dem base run on the idea of an actual government with laws and standards. Dems sometimes violate those laws, but with plausible deniability in the vein of lawyers.

The GOP and the GOP base runs on the idea that hurting people is the highest good, and that laws are just a means to an end. They used to have more of the "lawyerly plausible deniability" strain about them, but Trump and his ghoulish following have dispensed with that, as they're convinced that laws are a secret liberal plot to stop America from becoming a White Man's Country once again.

Basically, the GOP doesn't give a fuck about all the rules the Dems follow, and the GOP base won't electorally punish them for it, because the GOP base is made of fascists.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Not specifically, no. Though in 2020 and ‘24 they were definitely on about party unity

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Leviathan@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago

Add them to the list.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 18 points 2 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)
[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

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

Saves a little time

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago

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

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

Hopefully they all become irrelevant sooner or later.

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Adams is still their pick, even if he's (I). They just put Cuomo up under (D) to try to beat the leftist since Adams is now shamed.

Trust me, the Dem establishment is just fine with Adams as mayor of NYC.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

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

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (10 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 13 points 17 hours ago (7 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›