408

The “Uncommitted” movement seeking a change in the Democratic Party’s approach to the war in Gaza on Thursday announced it is not ready to support Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris — while urging voters not to back Republican nominee Donald Trump or third-party candidates who could help Trump win the November election.

The “Uncommitted” group “opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,” the statement continues. Additionally, the group is “not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“Voting is just a way to pick the person that will be sitting across from me at the negotiation table next year”, is one of the ways to think about it.

Harris‘ policy on Israel is ambiguous, weak and too-little-too-late. But you’ll get further trying to influence her administration than Trump 2.0.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Let's be honest. Without biden/trump it would be a non issue. Trump would smother out all reporting on the subject replacing it with trauma to the American people.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

It's okay to just say you disagree with Harris on some things and still vote for her.

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml -5 points 14 hours ago

Well, your thought experiment actually just agrees with the uncommitted, since if they don't want to negotiate now that they want your vote, what hope you have after you lost that leverage?

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I do agree with the uncommitted: voting third party because of Palestine is for idiots.

That said, if you are a political activist, and you think your one vote is the only thing you have to offer, you need a new ducking job.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 13 hours ago

The inability to think this way is why we’re in this mess. Happy Cake Day!

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

The ambiguity is ironically a good sign. That she isn't outright committed to the status quo. But rather not willing to signal her actual position. If she came out strongly against Israel and for Palestine. Unfortunately that would be a large hindrance to her candidacy in the current climate.

It's a shame that those illegally occupying Palestine have such influence over our government. Especially after their terrorist attacks of the last few days. Not to mention the decades long slow genocide that's only accelerated in the last year.

[-] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

She saw the Genocide Joe protests and is now "ambiguous" on this matter to pretend she isn't exactly like Biden on this subject.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
408 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18894 readers
5334 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS