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.”

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Completely feckless. Effectively an endorsement of Harris despite getting absolutely nothing in return. The people who want the genocide to continue (like Harris) were just proven to be strategically correct in writing off this movement because they knew they could and they’d just come crawling back to the lesser evil. What’s worse is that this spinelessness discredits any future movements or protests on the issue.

    Somehow telling people to vote for Harris is “not an endorsement,” because liberals think you can do the exact same action and it’s meaningfully different if you feel kinda bad while doing it.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      What exactly is your ideal outcome? They successfully prevent Harris from being elected, Trump gets in, funds the construction of the Israeli version of Auschwitz, and the Palestinians getting thrown into gas chambers will think “at least the Americans voted on principle”?

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        My ideal outcome is that Harris caves and stops the Israeli version of Auschwitz which is already happening. Failing that, my ideal outcome would be that the protesters establish a credible threat going forward that supporting genocide will result in tangible political consequences. Establishing such a threat is far more important is far more important than any one election, especially when both people are pro-genocide.

        The moment you commit yourself to the ideology of lesser-evilism, you have sacrificed every ounce of bargaining power you might have wielded. The concerns of reliable voters don’t factor into any politician’s calculus. I can’t figure out whether liberals just have terrible instincts regarding wielding power, or if it’s just that they don’t care to wield it because they’re satisfied with the status quo.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          My ideal outcome is that Harris caves and stops the Israeli version of Auschwitz which is already happening.

          the correct strategy here would be to push for full support on harris, under the pretense that “she will do something for palestine” and then after she gets into office (assuming she does) when the “inevitable” nothing gets done for palestine you can then rally support while in office in order to drum up what is more than likely going to be more effective support. Bargaining for something that currently exists in front of you is simply going to be much easier.

          Though this still doesn’t solve the whole problem of shooting yourself in the foot and ending up giving the republican congress more say, or just doing nothing at all, instead of something minor that would’ve been impactful.

    • Xanis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Everyone, don’t bother. I have made every reasonable argument against this silly narrative that I could think of since it began and not a single time has any one of these folks gone, “Yeah, Trump/GOP has promised worse” or anything remotely similar. You will receive one of a couple canned responses, which I’ll paraphrase below:

      1. “So you support the genocide?!”
      2. “You BlueMAGA are all the same. You support the genocide?!”
      3. “If you don’t support the genocide you will vote third party!”

      They will not listen to things like how you don’t support the genocide, don’t support war, know things like genocides are horrible, any explanation about how it will get worse, or anything similar.

      Just trying to save you some time.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        i got banned for a rather unfortunate string of comments regarding IP, though i will say, it was my fault.

        IP people are in my experience entirely single issues voters. They do not care about anything else, and cannot be made to care about anything else. It’s pretty par for the course as far as issues voters go.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        liberals think you can do the exact same action and it’s meaningfully different if you feel kinda bad while doing it.

        They will not listen to things like how you don’t support the genocide, don’t support war, know things like genocides are horrible, any explanation about how it will get worse, or anything similar.

        Literally the exact thing I just described. If your actions are indistinguishable from someone who supports genocide, then nobody gives a shit what’s going on inside your head regarding it, least of all politicians.