this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
169 points (98.3% liked)
memes
23901 readers
405 users here now
dank memes
Rules:
-
All posts must be memes and follow a general meme setup.
-
No unedited webcomics.
-
Someone saying something funny or cringe on twitter/tumblr/reddit/etc. is not a meme. Post that stuff in /c/slop
-
Va*sh posting is haram and will be removed.
-
Follow the code of conduct.
-
Tag OC at the end of your title and we'll probably pin it for a while if we see it.
-
Recent reposts might be removed.
-
No anti-natalism memes. See: Eco-fascism Primer
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope. Because I don't think the democratic party is going to be effective. But if this guy is going to do progressive things that make even a marginal impact, but has sketchy vibes, I will take that over the ultra-corpratist establishment dem he was running against. If it turns out that he's fetterman 2, well that's bad. But if you believe electoralism is ineffective, then it doesnt really matter either way.
To the extent that electoralism is effective, which isn't much, the lesser of 2 evils is still the right choice. So I'd rather see platner than a republican because, per what he's said he will do, it is a better outcome.
I do not see voting as compromising morals in any way. Voting is 100% harm reduction and a defense against encroaching fascism. It is not very effective in general, but it is something. And it is obviously not a substitute for direct action, organizing, donating, etc. for effective socialist orgs/causes
Just friendly reminder this is a thread about a Nazi tattoo haver who was bodyguard at the fucking Abu-Ghraib and doesn't even pretend to be repentant about it.
Don't get me wrong, that is despicable. But I stand by what I said: I would rather someone with an extremely fucked up past be in that office if they will enact progressive legislation that will reduce harm in the present/future.
I am very skeptical given his past. But 1) can he do significantly more harm as senator than Collins? I doubt it. 2) are his stated policy goals of taxes on the wealthy, single payer health care, opposing war in Iran, abolishing ICE, etc. good? Yes. It is good to have someone in that office who will vote for those things (IF he actually will). Those things would be good for marginalized groups and bad for the fascists. That is all I care about as far as electoralism goes.
The worst case scenario is heβs exactly as bad as his opponents openly claim they will be
The opposition from the left is a moral one based on the sketchy shit about him. He's running for senate. He can serve on committees and write bills. That's the extent of it. What are folks worried he'd actually do?
Opposition from the right is that he'll vote for the progressive things he says he will.
Left is concerned about who he is (purity testing), the right is concerned about what he'd do (because it'd be bad for them).
But comrade, don't you care at all about moral integrity?
Not with regard to electoralism. Electoralism is a game with a very particular purpose for leftists, in my view, and holding to ideological purity/morals will make us lose.
When it comes to actually organizing, someone like Platner would obviously not be a good idea to include. Not without some serious vetting. He could have genuinely changed, but I wouldn't take that risk in an organization.
you are indistinguishable from a Kopmala voter left-punching people for opposing genocide, you realize that right?
Imagining dommy mommy copmala made me feel tingly... it was a moment of weakness ok