this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
405 points (82.1% liked)

Political Memes

5886 readers
3082 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Those aren't mutually exclusive, you're not that stupid so why pretend?

"There weren't enough of us to sway the election" and "had more people worked with us we would have one" are the same statement: both point out that not enough people did the thing you're so pissed about

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

“There weren’t enough of us to sway the election” and “had more people worked with us we would have one”

"Had more people agreed with us, we would have had more people who agreed with us" is not anything but a statement of obvious, if wishful, fact, and is not what is being said; not in my summary nor in the arguments of the people I'm referring to. Nor does it make any sense as an argument, explanation, or point of any kind. Utterly vacuous.

The argument being put forth, and I suspect you're well-aware of this, is that if the Dems had taken up whatever position these protest-voters wanted, that would have convinced enough people to vote Dem who otherwise would not have done so.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

that if the Dems had taken up whatever position these protest-voters wanted, that would have convinced enough people to vote Dem who otherwise would not have done so.

Yes, that is your strawman of their arguments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Yes, that is your strawman of their arguments

And your claim is that they were actually saying "If more people agreed with us, we would have more people who agreed with us."

Would you like to explain how that is, in context, anything resembling a salient point? Or is your argument that they were spewing empty phrases, and I was wrong to apply meaning to their words?