The majority of democrats back Uncommitted's goals.
DOJ says Russia is meddling in the 2024 election,
- Thread starter squeezer
- Start date
What a stupid post.
The ICJ and UN ordered Israel to end the occupation and you think Palestinians might not agree to that?
Wow
Your argument with me is that I am against the genocide.
Expanding the Israeli - Arab war into Lebanon will not help Harris' election.
Interesting.
I had been under the impression there had been more 6-week or one-month plans floated at various times.
President Nixon Makes Prediction About Russia Post Cold War
The Richard Nixon Foundation applies the legacy and vision of President Richard Nixon, America’s relentless grand strategist, to defining issues facing our n...
youtube.com
They aren't though.
Uncommitted isn't angling to "punish Democrats".
They aren't endorsing, because you can't make the ask and then do nothing in response to not getting the ask addressed.
But they are encouraging anti-Trump votes and stopping him and educating people what that means in the US system.
They are also looking at their long-term options to influence policy and who they want in power in order to do that.
Uncommitted is trying to get Harris to shift policy.
If she won't, she won't get their votes.
Activist pressure or 'punishment', that's the tactic.
Through this nearly year long discussion you've never once suggested alternate or better tactics politically. All you've done is try to argue that not backing or endorsing Harris is either 'punishment', 'naive' or 'wasting a vote'. While you've admitted that you accept that Israel is committing genocide you have tried to argue that its not important, not a big enough issue to sway voters and 'pragmatic' to support the US/Israeli genocide.
What you refuse to say or discuss makes your position clearer than you think.
Uncommitted isn't saying she won't get their votes, they are not endorsing her.
Please pay attention to what the groups are saying.
"Abandon Harris" is saying she won't get their votes and that the explicit goal is to punish the Democrats to teach them a lesson, even if it requires getting Trump elected.
They are also not endorsing rump or Stein.
Equal status for all right now, no vote.
Because I have no interest in a useless discussion.
We have fundamentally different understandings of the voting and political systems.
There is no meaningful discussion of tactics or strategy to be had in such a circumstance.
When you won't even read or pay attention to what groups you claim to support/be on the same side of are saying, why do you think it would be worth having a discussion about the subtleties of political strategy and tactics?
And yet here you are again.
This is the tactic you use when you are called out, you pull a skoob and declare you won the debate or that what was posted is 'immaterial'.
I'm paying attention, val.
Uncommitted is leaving the door open that they can and will rally votes if Harris changes policy.
They are not saying vote for Harris right now. They don't want rump to win, they don't want to back Stein but they won't back Harris either.
Likely this means they will do what they did this summer, sign 'uncommitted' if Harris continues the genocide. Its essentially what I've been arguing here all year, though you will argue that they will be 'pragmatic' and think they will vote Harris if there is no change.
You are trying to split hairs by arguing that this is all just a stance and that Harris doesn't need to listen to them because they will vote for her regardless.
Harris may believe that as well, but its a massive risk.
Your inability to understand isn't my fault, Frank.
No, you're not.
You're making up what you want to be true.
Then use your superior language skills to clearly articulate the actual errors in my views instead of the blanket dismissal you use when you are called out.
I agree that some people are looking long term but the reality at this point in the election cycle, it's a close race between Trump and Harris. For a campaign to successfully influence Democratic policies and their implementation in the near term, a Democratic electoral victory is required. I see a comparison to Bernie's run in the primaries where he proposed policies to the left of the mainstream party but once the primaries were over, he backed the party's nomination, likely realizing that a small influence in the ruling party is better than zero influence if the opposition was in charge.
Similarly a movement to change alignment to less back Israel and provide more backing to Palestinians makes sense in the primaries but a continuation of the campaign when democrat non-voters in swing states will result in an administration that far worse for their movement. On a policy matter like economic policy, waiting 4 years is an acceptable stance but if the motivation of the voter is people dying in war, that wait of 4 years doesn't seem reasonable.
Interesting post for a guy who believes American Jews have no business lobbying for a foreign population.
Harris/Biden sent $8 billion in bombs to Israel.
The next day they enacted a 9/11 on Beirut to kill Nasrallah because he said he'd only stop defending Palestinians if there was peace.
Israel couldn't take that.
The world shunned Israel at the UN while only Biden/Harris is allowing them to continue.
Backing your genocide could cost her the election.
So continuing to avoid the simple logic of the US' two party system.
And the way you accuse me of genocide shows how desperately you need some help.
p.s. Nasrallah was a terrorist according to Canada, the US, most of the western world and much of the Arab world. Don't know many groups which are more widely considered terrorists.
