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 claim the Ds and Rs are the same, but you can very clearly see that the Ds are in favor of 10% less infanticide.
The genocidiers have us by the balls, folks. Nothing you can do but voice your full throated support for one of them.
Not only that, you must also shout down anybody who says they don’t want to support genocide. Only full loyalty is acceptable.
Oh so you’re likely voting dem anyway because you aren’t stupid and/or racist but you also say Harris should abide by US law and stop arms sales to Israel? WOW LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A TRUMP SUPPORTER HERE BOYS
It is deeply fucked the way social media has conflated opposing genocide and supporting The Other Team.
Really reeks of the Bush Era “You’re with us or you’re with the Terrorists!” when it came time to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Literally. Many people seem to have forgotten all the lessons from 9/11 and the clusterfuck that followed
It’s weird when you talk to yourself like this.
What do you mean?
Be fair. They’re in favor of 10% slower infanticide.
Don’t put words in my mouth. You are a part of the problem that I’m highlighting.
So you’re saying I should still vote for infanticide? I don’t want that kind of blood on my hands. That’s the issue in the Trolley Problem.
The joke of the modern American electoral system is that all the “viable” candidates are bloody. And if you abstain from voting or vote third party, you’re accused of supporting the winning candidate, regardless of your personal politics.
That is, I think, a big part of what drives the street protests. Americans who don’t want to be complicit in this barbarity have no other actionable way to express their condemnation.
deleted by creator
Not voting is just allowing the worse option which still puts blood on your hands. Inaction still has consequences.
We don’t live in a world where we have the ability to be completely pure, it’s an option that simply doesn’t exist unfortunately. :(
We need some way to denote “not gloating.”
The path to ending the conflict is through boycotts, not the president. But that takes time, so 10% less killing makes sense as a stop gap.
There is precedent for this. See apartheid South Africa. Palestinian freedom will seem impossible until it becomes inevitable.
US House overwhelmingly passes anti-BDS resolution
We’ve already seen individual states go so far as to issue state sanctions aimed at BDS movements. US House Resolution 246 seems to be an exercise in vote counting by the AIPAC Lobby to advance a national bill to the same effect.
The South African Apartheid system likely would have held up indefinitely if the US was the only country involved deciding its fate. And the Afrikaners had far less influence over the US Congress than the Israel lobby.