Can I get a smug lecture on how you're choosing the third, disconnected track?
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
108 points (77.6% liked)
Political Memes
12538 readers
2633 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's the solution?
The easy (legal, 2-step) way: Step 1; Vote Democrat in such overwhelming numbers that the Republicans cease to exist. Step 2; Vote to Left-leaning democrats in such numbers that the Fascist Zionist movement ceases to exist.
The other way: Eat the rich.
This will actually work. People need to register as democrats (gross, I know) and vote for progressives in the primaries. Make the democrats the party you want.
The other way will also work.
You don't shape the party, the party shapes you. All the "radical" DSA entryists that have won (AOC being the biggest example with her woke 1 comment) are slowly but surely moving rightwards.
Yes, it seems almost all politicians begin to "rot" once elected, but that's why they need regular pruning. New blood, new ideas, and energy for every cycle. It is exhausting but necessary.
I've never seen this happen with the leftist parties elected in my country. Feels more like a Democratic Party issue.
How has any major structural injustice in any society ever get solved?
Complaining on the Internet?
Incorrect
I disagree
And clearly you particularly care about major structural injustice.
Yes, I do. I care greatly about the 70+ year history of the US arming, training, and organizing terrorists around the world from NATO's Operation Gladio to the School of the Americas to the Mujahideen, to Al-Jolani, to Tibet and the ETIM. The US is the largest progenitor of major structural injustice in the world, having inherited the maintenance of the super majority of global structural injustices from the fading European colonial powers. Lest you forget, Vietnam was a French colony and the US got involved because the French were losing against the freedom fighters there.
That's a lot for what amounts to "I want to sweep China's systematic abuse of the Uyghurs under the rug."
Edit: Oops, they went on to do a genocide denial below. Wonder how that happened.
Passage of legislation by milquetoast liberals, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that yielded resounding progress?
How about Liberal-appointed justices paving the way for Same Sex Marriage?
If Liberal governments crafting diplomatic agreements like JCPOA to avoid war, or joining international pacts to try to address climate change like the Paris Climate Agreement?
If both sides same why historically has only one side paved the way of progress, even if slowly?
To others reading this: just remember anyone asserting both sides are the same are Trump supporters, whether they realize it or not. It's no different than the 1 nazi at a table thing.
Civil rights legislation was passed because of riots in the streets, not voting. Black people had a maximum of 25% voter turnout and in most states it was 10% or less. And civil rights were advanced under both a Democrat and Republican administration. And when the Nixon administration came up with the idea of disenfranchising black people by criminalizing drug use and making it a felony, the Democrats are the ones who wrote and passed the laws. And they never stopped over criminalizing black folks. They were doing it right up to the Clinton administration. Overtly racist policing and incarceration. Because voting in Ds isn't actually what changed anything - forcing the issue in the streets is what changed it.
The Obama administration crafting the JCPOA was the equivalent of a stalling tactic. Obama had to focus on the drone wars, on Libya, and on the pivot to Asia. While the bipartisan consensus was to destroy Iran after Libya (as set in the strategy under Bush2), there wasn't an opportunity because China's rise created a pacing challenge that the US needed to meet and Obama had to send almost 70% of our naval assets into the Pacific.
No, liberal justices didn't pave the way for same-sex marriage. Rioters did. Nothing happened until Stonewall. Democrats were happy to throw queer folk under the bus, same as they do today, and watch them get murdered in the street. But when they actually fought back in NYC, that's when the pressure built and the establishment needed to react.
It's always been this way. Improvements happen when the oppressed fight back, outside the ballot box. The labor movement had to do it, women's Suffrage had to do it, civil rights had to do it, gay rights had to do it, Haiti had to do it, Russia had to do it, China had to do it, Cuba had to do it. It's the only thing the power structure responds to.
And that's been proven by research from Princeton by the way. Popular opinion has literally no statistical influence on legislation across 30 years of study, which spans both parties in multiple configurations.
Again all that is beside the point. You're noting the broader coalition pushed for this -- and yet -- the actual people for whom the broader coalition voted into power in Congress and successfully passed the legislation were, in fact milquetoast liberals who pulled the lever for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If it was won in the streets, then why did the conservatives NOT vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but the Liberals did... ? How curious.
Anything that stalls war and murder is good.
Yes, liberals definitely paved the way. The justices liberals appointed factually voted in support of same-sex marriage. All who supported Obergefell v. Hodges except Anthony Kennedy were appointed by Liberal Democrats, fun fact
Naturally, civics is important and expressing your 1A rights are very important! Movements are dynamic, no dispute there. But at the end of the day, all these movements in the USA had one thing in common that led to these milestones: They voted for the Liberal, who reformed the law.
I have my major grievances with the Democratic party, but they are irrefutably better and throughout history (when acting as the liberal coalition and not conservatives pre-Southern Strategy), have been the bringers of progress, slow though it may be.
That's why I am proudly voting Democrat all the way down my ballot for these midterm elections for Congressional control that are the very first chance to put brakes on the fascist Trump regime. In doing so, in this user's words, we can "stall" and slow down and give people a chance to respond!
Also, everyone check your upcoming No King's Protests!
"milquetoast liberals" who literally immediately set about working on how to undo the impact of civil rights legislation by launching the drug war, establishing the southern strategy and then triangulation, and then drove head first into racial mass incarceration?
Like, listen to what we're saying. You think it was voting in liberals that got the legislation passed. I think liberals happened to be in charge when the rioting strategy got strong enough to demand a response. My evidence? A D president and an R president both had to capitulate, and an R president and a D legislature both worked to build the next structure of criminalizing blackness together after passing civil rights legislation.
To me, that says the party doesn't matter at all because both parties operated in both sides of power system, giving concessions and setting up the next disenfranchisement fight because, fundamentally, they were collaborating the whole way and continue to do so.
The person you're replying to thinks that America should continue funding Israel's Iron Dome because children might get hurt there, just an FYI. He's a peak liberal.
Oh no, I care about children independent of where they live.
Oh, the humanity!
^ By the way, this person could not acknowledge that Hamas murdered children on O7 (and a cursory glance at my history shows I'm no zionist lol, just not a zealot.) I bet they'd defend Russia's invasion of Ukraine and strikes on civilians, too.
I mean, they could've immediately set out to undo it by not voting, but clearly they did not?
There were Republicans in Congress. They didn't vote for it. What you're telling me is that when liberals are in Congress and in charge, they listen to protesters. Tell me, why hasn't Trump listened to protesters yet over a range of issues even though the No King's protests are larger than anything during Civil Rights?
Liberals > Conservatives. Just a fact.
NOVEMBER MIDTERMS ACTION STATIONS:
Vote Democrat all the way down ballot for these midterm elections for Congressional control that are the very first chance to put brakes on the fascist Trump regime. In doing so, in this user's words, we can "stall" and slow down and give people a chance to respond! In this user's words, they will actually be in power and listen to these protesters, unlike Republicans!
Check when and where your local No King's Protests will be!
You're confusing protesting with riots. The civil rights legislation was passed when the people could no longer be ignored. It was a deliberate concession to stop the rioting. Need I remind you that a Democrat was president when the FBI assassinated MLK Jr and Malcolm X? Because Democrats are just as bloodthirsty as Republicans. You think Democrats were "liberal" in the 60s but Republicans weren't? The Democrats were the party of the KKK at the time.
You have no idea of the history. You're making up myths to validate your voting choices.
Do you have any science-based evidence the riots were essential to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? In fact, how do you know they weren't counterproductive and we achieved in spite, not because of them?
Need I remind you that Democrats weren't yet the liberal banner but largely the conservative one at the time. This is common knowledge in any US Civics course. Are you a US Citizen and/or reside in the USA?
Audience, take note of the bad faith argumentation and gross misunderstanding of US History and party ideological swaps. I see this from MAGA all the time.
You literally said the reason civil rights passed is because the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THAT LIBERALS > CONSERVATIVES and you want claim that I am arguing in bad faith?
That's some serious dirtbag shit right there. Which is it? Civil rights passed because white voters voted in the KKK conservative party and that's evidence for why we should vote for Democrats today? Or is it that white voters voted in the liberals and the liberals did it?
You see the contradiction you've created and decide to pivot to meta debate? Fuck off.
@dreamy you were right
Ah yeah sometimes I flip it too but had modern Democrats in my head, of course (because that's what matters for this upcoming election after all!). You're right, I should've simply referred to them as Liberals consistently.
That said, yes. The literal reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed was because those activists voted in "Milquetoast Liberals" who then went on to vote for the legislation in Congress. This is fact!
So let's do it again! (The Tankies just can't figure out a way to weasel around this, it's kind of hilarious).
You know what else is a fact? That it wouldn't have passed without Republican support. I don't say that out of any love for the Republicans. All US politicians are lower than shit in my books.
You're so trapped in this liberal vs conservative framing and it's so inaccurate. All of the politicians in the history of the USA have been Liberals (private property, autonomy of individuals, wage labor, government defense of "universal" rights, capitalism). The distinction you're making in this case is the distinction between progressivism (a liberal faction that believes it can maintain capitalism by making concessions to the masses) and a mixture of classical liberalism and "liberal conservatism" (2 liberal factions who take a hard line on limiting what the government should do to maintaining markets and personal autonomy).
But even the progressive liberals are only making those concessions, like civil rights, to stop the rioting and the only reason they are ever successful is because the social conditions call for it. There's a reason liberal democracies didn't see progressivism emerge for more than a century after liberal constitutions were written and more than 200 years after liberalism became philosophically ascendant: because liberals became afraid of successful revolution.
Progressivism is widely understood to have structurally emerged by 1890. The Paris Commune was established in 1871 and the October Revolution occurred in 1917. Progressivism in America emerged in response to an agrarian popular uprising that was contemporaneous with violent labor uprisings.
Liberalism specifically has nothing to say about these things. It was Liberalism that created these problems and it was Liberalism that used the value of private property to justify putting down these uprisings with state violence. But using violence to repress unrest creates more unrest. It's not like there weren't progressive ideas before 1890. It's just that liberal democracies didn't allow progressivism in until, after over a century of conflict with the masses, it started to look like the masses would win.
Progressivism, therefore, was used by the liberal establishment as a release valve for the tensions caused by the class war (waged on the battle fields of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age, ability, neurology, and others).
Yes, you are 100% right that the reason civil rights was passed is because the progressives won the day. But the progressives won because their strategy was the best strategy available for dealing with the actual crisis that was caused by black population that not only was organizing for rebellion in huge numbers that could no longer be repressed fully but we're actually winning over white people as they did so and started to make class consciousness a part of their program. Progressivism had the solution that worked for the ruling class. The ruling class benefited from resolving the crisis.
And again, how do I know this? Because that same Congress then immediately set to work to support Nixon's criminalization of drug use which the insiders in the administration knew was specifically directed at Black people and the hippies that supported them.
This is the point. The parties don't matter. They take up different positions as needed at different times. But they share a common goal: maintenance of the capitalist global empire