this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
1793 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

7288 readers
3658 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And exactly what good are those votes doing if the Greens can't win any elections?

The point of running isn't to make nice speeches, it's to get elected and make real changes.

Again, what is the point if you never win?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the prohibition party never won, but they got a constitutional amendment.

the point is building a movement and demonstrating power.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Quick search shows that the Prohibition Party was established in 1868 and Prohibition was enacted in 1919. About 50 years later.

Greens were established in 2001. I guess that means you're willing to wait another 25 years for any substantive change.

Also, it's pretty funny that you can pay attention to the Prohibition Party and ignore the idea of vote splitting.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the fact you need to search indicates you may not be qualified to be having this discussion.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You get funnier and funnier. I literally lol'd that one.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

if you don't know about the most successful third party in America that never won an election, you should probably not be the one teaching about third parties

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This from the guy who needed 'splitting the vote explained'

You just keep getting funnier and funnier.

btw, uproarious laughter isn't considered a sign of petulance. It means 'sulky'

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

This from the guy who needed ‘splitting the vote explained’

just because you insisted on linking your favorite think tank doesn't mean anyone needed to see it.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

correcting your assumptions is generosity, not petulance

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 days ago

Sure, keep telling yourself whatever you need to.

You're a very smart person and a skilled debater; you have made a lot of people rethink their old ideas.

You are talented and well-respected in your community.

Need any more affirmations?

After all the laughter you've given me, I feel like giving something back.