this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
849 points (95.8% liked)

Political Memes

8745 readers
3403 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deddit@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 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.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Honestly, I don't want their endorsement. Fuck em. This party is getting taken over by the left or we're burning it down.

I think they see the inevitable rise of fascism and don't want to get grabbed by Trump's brown shirts. They're liberals that are being scratched and looking for a safe place in the future.

They didn't even do their typical. "Oh we're against the bombing of Iran but because he didn't go through Congress". I literally was waiting to roll my eyes at all their liberal "following procedure for our war crimes" but they even stayed quiet about it mostly.

We had two parties. Fascist and Liberals. Now we just have fascist and Liberals looking for a safe place in the new power structures. They're kind of confused I think. A little caught off guard with how much Trump is following through on actual policy. They're use to both parties lying and giving working class dollars to the rich. The conservatives are no longer playing the game of politics they all use to love that got nothing done.

Fuck the party leaders and most of these shits in Washington. They have no place now. We don't need their endorsement.

We can win with the momentum. We don't need to win power back through votes. We just need to give this countries people enough hope to build class consciousness. Decades can happen it weeks.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (2 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 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's rich people. The reason is rich people.

[–] visikde@lemmings.world 1 points 1 day ago

Rich is a symptom of reduced empathy
The willingness to exploit systems & labor for fun & profit

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Notice how she apologized for "mischaracterizing" and for her tone? Yeah. Because she know she would do that.

The entire point is to mischaracterize the position and spread racist xenophobia. Why can liberals know exactly what this is when conservatives do it to black people but when racist Zionist do it to brown people they think "well, they apologized by saying 'it wasn't totally accurate'"

Don't believe these people trying to fight progress by trying to appeal to Americans racism and xenophobia. They aren't your allies. They aren't good people. They are trying to keep them and their corrupt friends in power. That's it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

That's quite a conspiracy theory you got there. Is it not possible she was wrong and then admitted it?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

she isnt sorry said she said that, she sorry she got called out.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes she's very sorry the mask came off.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago

Well, and she admitted she was wrong. Publicly. So.

I mean b0tH SiDeZ and all that but still.

[–] anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago

Every politician will eat shit when they have something that they want

"Rubio apologizes for ‘below the belt’ remarks about Trump’s appearance"

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Oh so she’s going to back him now then?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Gillibrand and Mamdani had previously spoken by phone on Wednesday when she congratulated him the day after winning the Democratic mayoral primary.

Mamdani campaign spokesperson Andrew Epstein confirmed the Monday night call, adding that the apology was accepted and the two agreed to “set a path to move forward productively.”

Gillibrand’s readout said the two “discussed the need to bring down the temperature around the issue” of the war between Israel and Hamas, and that she “regretted not separating her own views from the radio show caller’s more clearly.”

“Gillibrand said she believes Mr. Mamdani is sincere when he says he wants to protect all New Yorkers and combat antisemitism,” the readout continued. “She said the GOP attacks on him are outrageous and unacceptable.”

Gillibrand’s team said the pair agreed to meet in person in New York City in the near future to discuss other issues including affordability and public safety.

Mamdani has worked to consolidate support from Democratic Party power players in the last week as he looks ahead to the general election after a heated primary where he was repeatedly attacked for his anti-Israel positions, such as saying the country was committing “genocide” in Gaza. Ranked choice results released Tuesday showed Mamdani growing his lead over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, winning 56 percent of votes counted.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I read that… but it unfortunately did not answer the question. But they play vague on purpose.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

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 (2 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.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I agree but you have to focus on outcomes. Does endorsing him help or harm him? Does endorsing him help or harm themselves? The answer to these questions might very well be "I don't know".

If some general polls shine a big awesome light on Mamdani being the best possible candidate to defeat the Republican nominee, then hopefully that is more than enough reason for these few Democrats to fall in line behind him. If he polls at like 25%, it's going to start being time to look at other options.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

However, the people chose him. I think maybe I have a naive/idealistic view of what a democracy actually is

[–] 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.

[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

That map makes New York look like a pelican rubbing its belly next to a rock.

[–] pretzelz@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day 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...

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I don't know much about Judaism but I wouldn't be surprised if among Jewish philosophers, religious and spiritual thinkers and community activists that standing up against injustice especially if it is easy to ignore is a form of expressing your love of god/spiritual practice.

It is the same with all the actually legitimate teachings in all major religions (quantified crudely by number of practicioners and length of history the religion has been practiced), how could it be otherwise? We are all human beings after all.

sigh countless jews know this, what you are seeing is US colonialism using judaism as a toy to be violently discarded later, it is a tale as old as time, one that the conservative authoritarian elements of spiritual movements always fall for like it is catnip.

Mamdani just makes it painfully obvious this is the game pretend conservatives hiding as religious leaders always ALWAYS play.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day 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.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

We're not talking about the mayor of Canon Beach, OR [randomly selected] with its cute chocolate shops, bed-and-breakfasts and small population. We're talking about going from state assembly advocate of the MTA to the whole shebang of one of the biggest concentrations of money and power in the world.

Admittedly, Eric Adams is the incumbent, so - wtf do I know. I'm all for Mamdani winning, I just think it's understandable to say "I'd prefer someone with more experience". That's not an excuse to shout him down, but I could understand not promoting him.

Plus - again, not a native New Yorker so wtf do I know - but I'd imagine someone who's publicly associated with what I'm guessing many people understand to be Muslim terrorism (I know that's not true, I'm saying many people think it is) would be difficult in most cities but in NY there's some reason it's an extra touchy subject.

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.

What they're really mad about is how badly the Democrats planned, thinking they'd waltz in past the wreckage of Adams with Cuomo and seeing how shit his campaign was. Now they're going to lose the SDNY office leverage they had AND get painted as radical leftist tankies AND lose the moderate votes.

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

My first thought is; do these people normally endorse Mayoral candidates?

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For NYC? Of course they do. Not a small town in Suburbia friend, this is the biggest city in the country. The mayor of New York is more important and more powerful than a good amount of Governors.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Chuck_Schumer

I can't say that this list is comprehensive (there are only 4 endorsements) but filtering through Chuck's messages for the last 16 years is too much for me to do for a single comment on Lemmy.