1066
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
1066 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
12385 readers
2424 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes 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.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It really goes to show how both parties have been captured by corporate and religious interests, and everyone's on the take and making bank on insider trading.
Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).
Well it does feel like this cycle, more and more of the good folks are winning and showing what government can do for people. Here’s to hoping that they keep winning and take over.
It’s going to be a question of momentum: will those on the left of the party keep pushing back against corporate interests and organising at a grassroots level. I sincerely hope that the momentum grows, but the power of the money being used against them is a pretty terrible beast. It’s definitely an interesting crossroads at the very least.
nonsense the dems are hard at work getting power back in the midterms
it is you with your both side crap that is feeding the apathy that might save this admninistration in november
same as the last election. useless commie nonsense. the DSA is even worse with their unelectable policies
"Get money out of politics" is only going to increase in popularity until there's some action. My concern is that a faux-populist democrat will become president, pass some empty reforms, declare victory, and then we'll be back here again in 15-20 years, when our democracy might be even weaker. OR that Republicans will end democracy before anything can happen.
AOC? Nah, she's been made to heel to Nancy's and Hakeem's wishes. Buckled at pretty much the first opportunity too. Still says some nice things, but she's useless as a challenge to the status quo. Made a useful tool of the establishment.
Bernie? Well, he tucked tail and quit fighting after the party establishment colluded and sabotaged his campaigns. 2020 was especially egregious, and he still agreed to back Biden. Again, says the right things at times, but far less a real challenge to the status quo now than he ever was.
The others you mentioned? Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he's limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office. El-Sayed, too early to tell. Talarico, I assume you mean? Tough row to hoe for a few months, probably a long shot, but he's been a democrat for years. That party is really irredeemable.
I wish I knew the real solution to this electoral mess. I keep hoping for a really hard charging third party challenge that can bridge the divide. May wait my entire life at this point.
Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, "I'm going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to." You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they're completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.
The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.
This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I'm not confident they will with trump.
There is precedent and it's been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama's constitutional term limits.
There's really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you're going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn't win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There's language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.
It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn't govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.
El-Sayed has a nasty little clinger-on he needs to get rid of, but then he'll be set.
do you not question the fact that your talking point is directly from fox news?
Hey quick counterquestion: How many people died in Tiananmen Square on June 4th 1989?
so the answer is no i guess
No, the answer is "not only are you completely wrong, you're being wrong on purpose because you're a pro-dictatorship propaganda parrot and it's painfully obvious."
Maybe try spreading your lies on a non-ml account next time. Y'all make it too easy to spot you.
right, i guess there's no point in continuing this conversation if you've deemed me automatically wrong because of my instance and can't even tell me why i'm wrong
that alongside the fact that when confronted for parroting fox news talking points you attempt shift the conversation to something that happened in china 37 years ago
clearly not acting in good faith, have a nice day
Very few, if any. Are you talking about the surrounding area where protestors murdered dozens of soldiers and police and then the soldiers finally started fighting back?
Are you parroting long debunked anti China propaganda designed to make you hate and distrust Chinese people? The propaganda that came from the billionaire pedophile rapist country??
I don't hate or distrust Chinese people. I hate and distrust every government that fancies itself a world power, and distrust every individual who supports one. No hate is necessary against people. Also, lol at another .ml user showing up to spout the same propaganda. You serve your masters well.
How many people do you think were killed in Tiananmen Square on that day and what are your sources?
Lol nice try
Not that hard to find the answer.
Bernie’s position isn’t that people should be forbidden from owning multiple homes or that anyone who has money must give most of it away. His argument is about the rules of the system. Higher taxes on the wealthy, stronger wages, worker protections and making basics like healthcare and housing more accessible. “Why doesn’t he sell two houses and feed the homeless?” confuses charity with policy. He could sell them tomorrow and it would have virtually no effect on homelessness. If you want to criticize Bernie, criticize whether his policies would actually work. Owning three homes isn’t by itself a contradiction of what he advocates
Except he didn’t stop. Sanders has continued arguing for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and against extreme concentrations of wealth after becoming a millionaire himself. Becoming wealthy isn’t inconsistent with saying wealthy people (including yourself) should pay more. Criticize the policy if you want, but this ‘he became a millionaire and suddenly went quiet’ line isn't true and just isn’t a serious argument
'Murican oligarchy owning pretty much the entire country
This mf: "WHY DOES BERNIE HAVE THREE HOUSES??? WAAAAH!!!!"
Can you provide a source on this? Can you show when he became a millionaire and when he stopped talking about millionaires? That's a pretty strong claim to make. Please provide a source.
You're not great at trolling
I mean sure, just make shit up I guess why not
Conservatives are evil and not welcome here.
So do I and I’m not rich.
Three day old account. Perhaps this is not the place you belong. Might wanna find a different social media to infect.
He can have a dozen homes and triple the cars; if hes still genuinely fighting for peoples rights and begging to tax the wealthy, im all for him.
Its not hypocritical for a US senator to have three homes. It is incredibly evil to vote against what is best for your constituents, which is what most other senators seem to be doing.
Another piece of shit to block!
I'm seeing a lot of words, so that begs the question: what have you done to support socialist policy in your national government?
who seem to still be holding on to do good but aren't actually much as they keep using and endorsing the private social network of a nazi where this post is also taken from. Downvote X reposts and don't share them or the rotten system it's on you too.