DOJ says Russia is meddling in the 2024 election,

[Frankfooter]

No, they didn't.



You just don't operate in reality at all, do you?

Yes they did.

As many know, Uncommitted put out a statement yesterday where we announced we will not be endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. And in that same statement, we had announced that we are vehemently opposing Donald Trump and that we do not recommend a third-party vote.

And to put it into a little bit of context, we have been working for months, where we, you know, started in Michigan, 1.5 million voter contacts, mobilized over 101,000 people to go to the polls and vote uncommitted as a protest vote against Biden and the administration and their ongoing support for Israel as it relates to the occupation and killing of Palestinians.

And what we offered to VP Harris is that if Vice President Kamala Harris is able to do two things — either change policy as it relates to current U.S. policy that backs bombs, or simply does the thing of ensuring and upholding current international and human rights laws as it relates to the way that Israel is violating war crimes — that we would do — that we would repeat what we did in Michigan to mobilize our base to go to the polls and vote for her come November. It was the offer we put on the table that was declined by Vice President Kamala Harris and her campaign team.

And so, because we were not met in good faith, we had to make the decision to not be able to endorse her. And to be clear, an endorsement is an opportunity for us to do the same thing that we did in Michigan: mobilize our voters. An endorsement means that we are offering something and doing something. And because we were not met in good faith with our policy demands, it is something that we cannot do.

 

[Leimonis]

Yes they did.

As many know, Uncommitted put out a statement yesterday where we announced we will not be endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. And in that same statement, we had announced that we are vehemently opposing Donald Trump and that we do not recommend a third-party vote.
And to put it into a little bit of context, we have been working for months, where we, you know, started in Michigan, 1.5 million voter contacts, mobilized over 101,000 people to go to the polls and vote uncommitted as a protest vote against Biden and the administration and their ongoing support for Israel as it relates to the occupation and killing of Palestinians.
And what we offered to VP Harris is that if Vice President Kamala Harris is able to do two things — either change policy as it relates to current U.S. policy that backs bombs, or simply does the thing of ensuring and upholding current international and human rights laws as it relates to the way that Israel is violating war crimes — that we would do — that we would repeat what we did in Michigan to mobilize our base to go to the polls and vote for her come November. It was the offer we put on the table that was declined by Vice President Kamala Harris and her campaign team.
And so, because we were not met in good faith, we had to make the decision to not be able to endorse her. And to be clear, an endorsement is an opportunity for us to do the same thing that we did in Michigan: mobilize our voters. An endorsement means that we are offering something and doing something. And because we were not met in good faith with our policy demands, it is something that we cannot do.

lol what a loser whining. No to Kamala, no to trump and no third party. Let's just get under our blankets and cry ourself to sleep

 

[NotADcotor]

lol what a loser whining. No to Kamala, no to trump and no third party. Let's just get under our blankets and cry ourself to sleep

When people who wouldn't vote Kamala don't vote or vote for some third party nobody who will never win, that helps Trump
If you want genocide in the middle east, the last thing you want to do is support Trump because he is even more keen to help Israel fight genocide than Biden is.
That is up there with Queers against Israeli apartheid, Queers for Palestine, Chickens fo KFC, Jews for Hitler [thank you Mad Magazine from around 1980 for that one] of people who are just fucking next level self destructive retarded. Even Lancet said so.

It is totally beyond me how anyone doesn't understand this, but when it comes to living in a world of delusions, blind hatred and flat out lies, Frankie is a gift that never stops giving.

Thankfully at least regardless of who wins, the white house will have someone who is willing to help in the fight against genocide, unfortunate for the rape, hostage taking, terrorism and genocide fanboys here on terb.

 

[Frankfooter]

lol what a loser whining. No to Kamala, no to trump and no third party. Let's just get under our blankets and cry ourself to sleep

You're a Jew hater.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1836448327556125081

 

[Valcazar]

Yes they did.

As many know, Uncommitted put out a statement yesterday where we announced we will not be endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. And in that same statement, we had announced that we are vehemently opposing Donald Trump and that we do not recommend a third-party vote.
And to put it into a little bit of context, we have been working for months, where we, you know, started in Michigan, 1.5 million voter contacts, mobilized over 101,000 people to go to the polls and vote uncommitted as a protest vote against Biden and the administration and their ongoing support for Israel as it relates to the occupation and killing of Palestinians.
And what we offered to VP Harris is that if Vice President Kamala Harris is able to do two things — either change policy as it relates to current U.S. policy that backs bombs, or simply does the thing of ensuring and upholding current international and human rights laws as it relates to the way that Israel is violating war crimes — that we would do — that we would repeat what we did in Michigan to mobilize our base to go to the polls and vote for her come November. It was the offer we put on the table that was declined by Vice President Kamala Harris and her campaign team.
And so, because we were not met in good faith, we had to make the decision to not be able to endorse her. And to be clear, an endorsement is an opportunity for us to do the same thing that we did in Michigan: mobilize our voters. An endorsement means that we are offering something and doing something. And because we were not met in good faith with our policy demands, it is something that we cannot do.

They didn't endorse.
They did not say to withhold their vote.
They don't recommend voting third party and they oppose Donald Trump.

They are trying to thread a very thin line given the little pressure they can put.
Since they did make a demand and it wasn't met, they are not endorsing.

But they aren't NEARLY stupid enough to recommend the "waste your vote third party" or "don't vote so that the Democrats learn".

It's a really tricky place to be and they are handling it about as well as they can.

 

[Valcazar]

lol what a loser whining. No to Kamala, no to trump and no third party. Let's just get under our blankets and cry ourself to sleep

Not what they are saying.

 

[Frankfooter]

When people who wouldn't vote Kamala don't vote or vote for some third party nobody who will never win, that helps Trump
If you want genocide in the middle east, the last thing you want to do is support Trump because he is even more keen to help Israel fight genocide than Biden is.
That is up there with Queers against Israeli apartheid, Queers for Palestine, Chickens fo KFC, Jews for Hitler [thank you Mad Magazine from around 1980 for that one] of people who are just fucking next level self destructive retarded. Even Lancet said so.

It is totally beyond me how anyone doesn't understand this, but when it comes to living in a world of delusions, blind hatred and flat out lies, Frankie is a gift that never stops giving.

Thankfully at least regardless of who wins, the white house will have someone who is willing to help in the fight against genocide, unfortunate for the rape, hostage taking, terrorism and genocide fanboys here on terb.

Its all on Harris.

She is pushing an incredibly unpopular genocide.
Its an easy fix, say you will do what Bernie suggest, stop sending Israel bombs.

Its her choice, win the election or bomb kids.

 

[Frankfooter]

They didn't endorse.
They did not say to withhold their vote.
They don't recommend voting third party and they oppose Donald Trump.

They are trying to thread a very thin line given the little pressure they can put.
Since they did make a demand and it wasn't met, they are not endorsing.

But they aren't NEARLY stupid enough to recommend the "waste your vote third party" or "don't vote so that the Democrats learn".

It's a really tricky place to be and they are handling it about as well as they can.

You're really going to argue that they aren't saying to not vote for Harris unless she changes her policy on Palestine/
Really?

This is exactly what I've been arguing here for months.

So what will Harris do?
Risk losing the election so Israel can keep bombing kids in the face of ICC warrants?

 

[Frankfooter]

Not what they are saying.

Now you're just in denial.

Butler1000

Ok,who do you think will do the reform.

Politicians, under pressure from activists.
Just like every other reform that has ever happened.

 

[Leimonis]

Not what they are saying.

Okay correction: I’m They are against Trump and against third party and they are whining about Kamala not wanting to flush israel down the toilet.
Kamala called it long ago when she said to the ultra left: if you don’t like me go vote for Trump.

 

[Valcazar]

When people who wouldn't vote Kamala don't vote or vote for some third party nobody who will never win, that helps Trump

That should be clarified.
People who, between Trump and Harris, prefer Harris, help Trump when they choose not to vote or vote third party.

Obviously, people who prefer Trump over Harris and then don't vote help Harris.

If you want genocide in the middle east, the last thing you want to do is support Trump because he is even more keen to help Israel fight genocide than Biden is.

Frank's answer to this is that maybe Trump won't support Israel, or maybe he is too senile to accomplish what he would do to help Israel, and also there is no way things in Gaza can get any worse, so it doesn't matter what Trump's attitude is.
(That's when he isn't saying the Democrats have to lose because they supported Israel - losing will teach them a lesson and four years from now they will be more anti-Israel and win.)

 

[Valcazar]

You're really going to argue that they aren't saying to not vote for Harris unless she changes her policy on Palestine/
Really?

Yes.
Because they aren't saying that.

This is exactly what I've been arguing here for months.

Yes, that's what *you've* been arguing.
Not what Uncommitted is.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank's answer to this is that maybe Trump won't support Israel, or maybe he is too senile to accomplish what he would do to help Israel, and also there is no way things in Gaza can get any worse, so it doesn't matter what Trump's attitude is.
(That's when he isn't saying the Democrats have to lose because they supported Israel - losing will teach them a lesson and four years from now they will be more anti-Israel and win.)

That's intentionally wrong and you know it. You can do better, I would hope.

Two points
1) Uncommitted and Palestine supporters have the maximum power of political activists, enough votes swing the election on a clear election easy that should be easy for Harris to change and a position that is clear and well publicized.
2) If she loses then you play the long game, the US survived 4 years or rump once. They can survive him when he's way more senile and useless. If Harris loses over support of the genocide, AIPAC is done. It will have killed a presidency.

Arguing that the genocide could be worse is minimizing the fact that its still genocide right now.

Will Harris lose the election over her desire to send bombs to kill kids?
That's up to her now.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes.
Because they aren't saying that.



Yes, that's what *you've* been arguing.
Not what Uncommitted is.

Yes, they said that.
the Uncommitted National Movement, which for months has attempted to steer the Democratic Party toward a more critical stance on Israel, has announced it is not endorsing Kamala Harris. Neither does the organization recommend casting a third-party vote, citing the risk of splitting the two-party vote and ushering in a second term for Donald Trump.

Unless you're saying by not endorsing Harris, rump or Stein you really think that means they mean vote for Harris anyways.

 

[Valcazar]

Okay correction: I’m They are against Trump and against third party and they are whining about Kamala not wanting to flush israel down the toilet.
Kamala called it long ago when she said to the ultra left: if you don’t like me go vote for Trump.

They aren't whining.

This isn't "the ultra left" and if I recall, the comment about voting for Trump was to people explicitly saying they won't vote for her.

 

[Valcazar]

Two points
1) Uncommitted and Palestine supporters have the maximum power of political activists, enough votes swing the election on a clear election easy that should be easy for Harris to change and a position that is clear and well publicized.
2) If she loses then you play the long game, the US survived 4 years or rump once. They can survive him when he's way more senile and useless. If Harris loses over support of the genocide, AIPAC is done. It will have killed a presidency.

1) No they don't.
They possibly maybe have the ability to swing the election. If they do, it will be unclear they were what swung it.
If they succeed in swinging it, they make things for their preferred position worse.

So not really maximum power of activists at all, as the actual leaders of the movement are all too aware of.

2) Yes, the "Trump isn't a problem, he's not a threat at all" is the pitch you have to make to even try to justify this tactic. It's a pitch virtually no voter who actually cares about Gaza and the Palestinians believes. But I am glad you agree "Trump is senile and so isn't a danger" is your position. Of course, "the US survived Trump the first time" implies you are more than happy to sacrifice whoever a Trump Administration damages in the meantime. You acknowledge it won't help Gaza or the Palestinians, but insist that The person AIPAC supports more and who will further AIPAC's aims winning the election will mean "AIPAC is done". (And, again, assume that the results will be obviously attributable to Harris's position when that is, in fact, most likely going to be extremely difficult to prove.)

Yes, they said that.
the Uncommitted National Movement, which for months has attempted to steer the Democratic Party toward a more critical stance on Israel, has announced it is not endorsing Kamala Harris. Neither does the organization recommend casting a third-party vote, citing the risk of splitting the two-party vote and ushering in a second term for Donald Trump.

Unless you're saying by not endorsing Harris, rump or Stein you really think that means they mean vote for Harris anyways.

Jesus you're thick.
Yes, they mean vote for Harris anyways.
Or rather - vote "anti-trump up and down the ballot".

WATCH: Leaders of Democratic protest of Israel-Hamas war won't endorse Harris but warn against Trump

Leaders of a Democratic protest vote movement against the Israel-Hamas war said Thursday that they would not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris ’ presidential bid but strongly urged their supporters to vote against Donald Trump in November.

www.pbs.org

Uncommitted won’t endorse Harris but urges voters to “block Donald Trump”

The group representing voters frustrated by the administration's policies on Gaza says Harris has made it “impossible” to endorse her.

www.motherjones.com

 

[NotADcotor]

That should be clarified.
People who, between Trump and Harris, prefer Harris, help Trump when they choose not to vote or vote third party.

Obviously, people who prefer Trump over Harris and then don't vote help Harris.



Frank's answer to this is that maybe Trump won't support Israel, or maybe he is too senile to accomplish what he would do to help Israel, and also there is no way things in Gaza can get any worse, so it doesn't matter what Trump's attitude is.
(That's when he isn't saying the Democrats have to lose because they supported Israel - losing will teach them a lesson and four years from now they will be more anti-Israel and win.)

Yeah I don't proof read what I post.
Thank yu for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

 

[NotADcotor]

2) Yes, the "Trump isn't a problem, he's not a threat at all" is the pitch you have to make to even try to justify this tactic. It's a pitch virtually no voter who actually cares about Gaza and the Palestinians believes. But I am glad you agree "Trump is senile and so isn't a danger" is your position. Of course, "the US survived Trump the first time" implies you are more than happy to sacrifice whoever a Trump Administration damages in the meantime. You acknowledge it won't help Gaza or the Palestinians, but insist that The person AIPAC supports more and who will further AIPAC's aims winning the election will mean "AIPAC is done". (And, again, assume that the results will be obviously attributable to Harris's position when that is, in fact, most likely going to be extremely difficult to prove.)

The other thing is I question the sanity of a supposed American who would throw the US under the bus to a wack job like Trump in favor of Gaza, even if they were the innocent victims and not the genocidal twat monkeys.

Trump, a threat to democracy in the US with his stated plans of fixing future elections.
Trump with his Smoot Hawley dreams of wreaking global trade to who knows what end
Trump and his Neville Chamberlain/I would invite them to invade out allies threat to the western world and global order.

That wack job.

Anyone who tries to make it easier for Trump to win because of Gaza is, even more insane than someone who thinks Trump is an honest man. It isn't even close. A total detachment from reality.

People like that can't even use the defense that they don't think Trump is all that bad because most of them are anti trumptard.

 

[Frankfooter]

1) No they don't.
They possibly maybe have the ability to swing the election. If they do, it will be unclear they were what swung it.
If they succeed in swinging it, they make things for their preferred position worse.

So not really maximum power of activists at all, as the actual leaders of the movement are all too aware of.

Is that a risk you think Harris should take, if you are so scared of rump gaining power?
Why is sending bombs for genocide so important that its worth risking losing?

2) Yes, the "Trump isn't a problem, he's not a threat at all" is the pitch you have to make to even try to justify this tactic. It's a pitch virtually no voter who actually cares about Gaza and the Palestinians believes. But I am glad you agree "Trump is senile and so isn't a danger" is your position. Of course, "the US survived Trump the first time" implies you are more than happy to sacrifice whoever a Trump Administration damages in the meantime. You acknowledge it won't help Gaza or the Palestinians, but insist that The person AIPAC supports more and who will further AIPAC's aims winning the election will mean "AIPAC is done". (And, again, assume that the results will be obviously attributable to Harris's position when that is, in fact, most likely going to be extremely difficult to prove.)

Long game, valcazar. The GOP is unlikely to change but the dems can and have. If they don't for this election they will for the next. And if they don't then voters will keep the pressure up. The question now is will Harris risk the election over support of genocide.

Jesus you're thick.
Yes, they mean vote for Harris anyways.
Or rather - vote "anti-trump up and down the ballot".

WATCH: Leaders of Democratic protest of Israel-Hamas war won't endorse Harris but warn against Trump

Leaders of a Democratic protest vote movement against the Israel-Hamas war said Thursday that they would not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris ’ presidential bid but strongly urged their supporters to vote against Donald Trump in November.

www.pbs.org

Uncommitted won’t endorse Harris but urges voters to “block Donald Trump”

The group representing voters frustrated by the administration's policies on Gaza says Harris has made it “impossible” to endorse her.

www.motherjones.com

By 'blocking trump' they are saying don't vote Green. Not do vote for Harris.

 

[Frankfooter]

The other thing is I question the sanity of a supposed American who would throw the US under the bus to a wack job like Trump in favor of Gaza, even if they were the innocent victims and not the genocidal twat monkeys.

Trump, a threat to democracy in the US with his stated plans of fixing future elections.
Trump with his Smoot Hawley dreams of wreaking global trade to who knows what end
Trump and his Neville Chamberlain/I would invite them to invade out allies threat to the western world and global order.

That wack job.

Anyone who tries to make it easier for Trump to win because of Gaza is, even more insane than someone who thinks Trump is an honest man. It isn't even close. A total detachment from reality.

People like that can't even use the defense that they don't think Trump is all that bad because most of them are anti trumptard.

Never again.

Lots of people have moral lines.
It used to be that if a politician was found lying, that was enough to end their career.
Now its not rape, felony, fraud or a suspected coup.

For valcazar that red line is attacks on the rules of governance, but genocide is ok.

Now you want people not even have a red line for genocide.
Why would you want that?