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.”

  • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

    • lorty
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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.