953
Mark my words: they will put Kamala 2.0. or Gavin in the race for president instead of AOC or any other progressive.
(feddit.org)
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
953 points (91.5% liked)
Political Memes
7904 readers
3617 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
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.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The performative kind who insisted that they couldn't vote for Harris even in the spirit of harm reduction in the face of an obvious, outright, blatant fascist with a very clear shot at winning.
Okay, so you don't think there is anyone that would have been motivated to vote for Harris if she had adopted positions like universal healthcare that isn't a 'performative' left-winger that would never be happy with her?
I think that choosing to let an open, clearly identified fascist win because one of the most progressive platforms in the past 40 years isn't progressive enough is either a sign of being purely performative in your leftism, wherein what matters is a pseudoreligious devotion to marking up virtue points for the afterlife (rather than actually forestalling harm or establishing conditions for change in the real world), or a sign of being an utter moron.
Those who chose not to vote Harris can pick which they identify as, I won't dispute whichever of the two labels they choose.
Okay, but it seemed like the point of the comment I initially replied to was that it was contradictory to assume that Harris could have had a better shot at winning by moving to the left, and that the number of people that decidedly don't vote based on Harris not being progressive enough is insignificant. Do you really think that's true?
The point of the comment was that it was contradictory to say that Harris lost because she didn't move left, while simultaneously denying that certain groups of leftists choosing to let the fascist win are at fault for, well, choosing to let the fascist win.
Either the aforementioned leftists aren't enough to matter, and moving left wouldn't have saved us; or the aforementioned leftists are enough to matter, and thus are directly responsible, by their inaction, for letting fascism win.
It seems pretty wild to me to assume that there is a trivial number of people that would be motivated to vote based on something like universal healthcare, that isn't a pseudo religious devotee of performative leftism.
Like I said, they absolutely could be morons instead.
If someone's reaction to "The non-fascist candidate isn't offering universal healthcare" is "Let the fascist candidate who wants to rollback all public healthcare initiatives win", they're either a performative leftist or a moron.