DOJ says Russia is meddling in the 2024 election,

[Valcazar]

You argue that its 'bizarre' for groups of people to say they will vote third party because of dem support of genocide because you argued those votes will be wasted. You have also argued that its 'punishment' to say you will not vote for dems because of Harris and Biden's support of genocide. But you have also said that most meaningful political change has come through political pressure from activists.

All this to declare that activists having already used every other means of pressure are now resorting to voting third party are 'bizarre' for using their votes for change.

In your conversation with butler he asked you who will force change.
butler:
Ok,who do you think will do the reform.

Your reply:


Now you're declaring its 'bizarre' that activist would use their votes to pressure politicians for change.
And you don't see any conflict between those concepts?

Why are you working so hard to declare that voters shouldn't try to pressure the dems to stop supporting genocide?

Do you have serious comprehension problems?

I'm not saying that using votes isn't one of the tools to use pressure.
You're claiming I have now said that the the only way meaningful change is made is voting third party or not voting.

That is a bizarre claim to make, since I have repeatedly explained to you how ineffective that is in the system you are saying they should do it in.

Instead of listening to a thing I've said, you have decided to just make up the idea that I have agreed with you.

Again, either you are incapable of following and understanding a conversation, or you are maliciously lying.

You're also claiming now that I am saying it is "bizarre" for groups of people to say they will vote third party.
I said it would be bizarre of you to think that when I said "pressure from activists" I secretly meant "withold your vote or vote third party" and nothing else.

So again, you are either unable to follow a conversation or deliberately lying.


I grant that you seem to believe that activists have already used every other means of pressure and are now resorting to voting third party to get the change they want.

But don't claim I agreed with you just because you can't read.

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you have serious comprehension problems?

I'm not saying that using votes isn't one of the tools to use pressure.
You're claiming I have now said that the the only way meaningful change is made is voting third party or not voting.

That is a bizarre claim to make, since I have repeatedly explained to you how ineffective that is in the system you are saying they should do it in.

Instead of listening to a thing I've said, you have decided to just make up the idea that I have agreed with you.

Again, either you are incapable of following and understanding a conversation, or you are maliciously lying.

You're also claiming now that I am saying it is "bizarre" for groups of people to say they will vote third party.
I said it would be bizarre of you to think that when I said "pressure from activists" I secretly meant "withold your vote or vote third party" and nothing else.

So again, you are either unable to follow a conversation or deliberately lying.


I grant that you seem to believe that activists have already used every other means of pressure and are now resorting to voting third party to get the change they want.

But don't claim I agreed with you just because you can't read.

Now you're lying, where did I say that 'the only way' to make meaningful change is voting third party or not voting?
Palestine protesters have tried everything, now this is the best option in a tight race.

This is the same conversation we've been having for nearly a year, val.
Where you declare its naive, foolish or voters don't understand politics like you do if they won't vote for the dems because of the genocide.
This same conversation where you ignore the massive pressure from voters, from protests, to calls, to protesting dem events.
The same conversation where you ignore polls from the dems showing massive support for a ceasefire.

Biden is gone now, largely because he failed at the debate but also because he didn't have enough support from the party as Genocide Joe.
The polls show a close race, with that 5% bump Harris needs available if she succumbs to political pressure.
Which makes this moment exactly what you said creates changes, pressure from activists.

The disconnect you won't accept is that 'uncommitted' and Muslim groups publicly saying the won't vote for Harris if she continues to support genocide is 'pressure from activists'. Instead you want to label that as 'wasted votes'. You refuse to accept that a big enough block of voters to change the election publicly saying they won't vote because of one political issue is 'pressure from activists'. That, to me, is bizarre.

 

[Valcazar]

Now you're lying, where did I say that 'the only way' to make meaningful change is voting third party or not voting?

Starting post 124.

But if this is just a mis-interpretation, then fine.

We just disagree about what is effective pressure - which is what this disagreement has been about from the start.

This is the same conversation we've been having for nearly a year, val.

Yes.
You don't understand the voting system, and voting Green is ineffective pressure that will not deliver the results you want.

The disconnect you won't accept is that 'uncommitted' and Muslim groups publicly saying the won't vote for Harris if she continues to support genocide is 'pressure from activists'. Instead you want to label that as 'wasted votes'. You refuse to accept that a big enough block of voters to change the election publicly saying they won't vote because of one political issue is 'pressure from activists'. That, to me, is bizarre.

They can change the election.
They can put a party into power that will actively make their goals harder to achieve.

Whether or not someone understands the reality of the limits of the pressure they can bring to bear is important in politics.

Uncommitted Mvmt. Won’t Back Presidential Candidate as U.S. Keeps Arming Israel

The U.S. presidential election is just 45 days away, and for antiwar voters, the policy differences between the two leading candidates are vanishingly thin. As the Biden-Harris administration continues to supply billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, the Uncommitted National Movement...

www.democracynow.org

 

[Frankfooter]

Starting post 124.

But if this is just a mis-interpretation, then fine.

We just disagree about what is effective pressure - which is what this disagreement has been about from the start.



Yes.
You don't understand the voting system, and voting Green is ineffective pressure that will not deliver the results you want.



They can change the election.
They can put a party into power that will actively make their goals harder to achieve.

Whether or not someone understands the reality of the limits of the pressure they can bring to bear is important in politics.

Uncommitted Mvmt. Won’t Back Presidential Candidate as U.S. Keeps Arming Israel

The U.S. presidential election is just 45 days away, and for antiwar voters, the policy differences between the two leading candidates are vanishingly thin. As the Biden-Harris administration continues to supply billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, the Uncommitted National Movement...

www.democracynow.org

Uncommitted make a reasonable argument that withholding their votes is the best option. Their public announcement that they are withholdiing votes is making maximum use of the situation to give that small group the possible ability to keep Harris from office if she continues to back the genocide and the information from the poll we discussed.

That makes this one of the most effective chances for political pressure in a long time, a large enough group to swing the election with votes she can regain if she supports a ceasefire.

This puts all the pressure on Harris, she is being given the choice to change policy or possibly lose the election.

 

[Valcazar]

Uncommitted make a reasonable argument that withholding their votes is the best option.

No, they didn't.

Their public announcement that they are withholdiing votes is making maximum use of the situation to give that small group the possible ability to keep Harris from office if she continues to back the genocide and the information from the poll we discussed.

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

 

[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.