196 stands with palestinelocked
The US primaries and the general election are two different things. Voting uncommitted in the primary expresses support for the Palestinian plight and does not give Republicans any ground.
The uncommitted movement presents a safe and effective avenue for voters to voice dissatisfaction with President Biden’s policies, particularly with the Israel-Hamas conflict. By doing so in the primary, voters can signal discontent without risking a Republican victory in the general election. The purpose is to send a wake-up call to the Biden administration that it is failing to address issues and effectively engage with the party, vis a vis that Biden is enabling a genocide.
That being said, anyone who calls for an uncommitted or third-party vote in the general election i will personally kick in the gender neutral balls (in Minecraft).
That's not the message though, so this is disingenuous or misleading. We all 98% agree the US should tell Israel to quit their shit and not give them more funds or weapons, and that it's disappointing Biden and 90% of the US political establishment have supported this. However, what people are told is we should not vote for Biden, and vote third party or not vote, to 'send the Democrats a message'. Enough people doing that would have the predictable result of getting Trump elected, so yeah, it's a decent question why people would suggest that when a Trump admin would surely be worse on the Palestine issue.
I agree with this and it's what I'm afraid of. I totally support voting in the primary as you wish, even just to send a message (I support voting how you wish in all cases). But in this case using primary voting to send a dissatisfied message about the Democratic candidate has me worried it will instead send a wider message (or mass media will push this message) that the US populace feels Biden is unpopular compared to Trump.
Which is absolutely not the case with the vast majority of people voting against Biden in the primary. But that kind of message (accidental or intentional) can do real harm to prevent a literal fascist takeover in November. This is the totality of my concern and if we weren't facing down the potential end of democracy in the US, I'd give a lot less shits about potentially torpedoing Biden's chances. And I feel a lot of the hate against Biden has galvanized right around the time the primary season started which seems convenient for Trump.
It’s almost like sending bombs to kill innocent children might be one of those wedge issues
you misunderstand the us primary election process.
The uncommitted movement presents a safe and effective avenue for voters to voice dissatisfaction with President Biden’s policies, particularly with the Israel-Hamas conflict. By doing so in the primary, voters can signal discontent without risking a Republican victory in the general election. The purpose is to send a wake-up call to the Biden administration that it is failing to address issues and effectively engage with the party, vis a vis that Biden is enabling a genocide.
No, I sure don’t. Talking endless shit about Biden will affect more than the primary.
i agree! and so does the uncommitted movement. that’s why a third party or uncommitted vote will not be called after the primary. the shit talking will generally end as soon as the primaries are over, regardless of the outcome.
you seem to be here in good faith so i encourage you to look more into what the uncommitted movement is thinking. these aren’t stupid folks and they well understand the concerns which you bring up and are strategizing within that very framework. perhaps you will be led to interrogate assumptions you had previously made, perhaps not. :)
I find it pretty unlikely the one sided criticism of the Democratic Party and politicians will end after the primary, and you're ignoring that not everyone receiving these messages is on board with your theory. Oh, he's "genocide joe" only til the primary is done, then vote for him! And meanwhile you're going to continue strangely never saying anything critical or realistic about Trump and Republicans, right?
i agree, genocide joe is kind of a dumbass nickname.
and you’re wrong, watch: trump, if elected, will go fucking balls to the wall in “finishing” the genocide. trump is a genocidal freak and biden is only slightly better because democrats may have the opportunity to sway him.
so hopefully that teaches you to make assumptions lol
Okay, great. We agree about that at least. I'm being pragmatic about the election. Pressuring Democrats about Palestine is great, but do we want to help Palestinians? Getting Trump elected will not do that, and the only way to prevent it at this point, short of buying him 10,000 hamberders, is supporting Biden, even though he's not most people's ideal candidate.
If you don't want to hear people shit-talking Biden then you need to either avoid politics altogether or stick to a filter bubble that doesn't tolerate such criticism.
Who said the issue was I don't want to hear it? I'm here discussing it. My point is that it's counterproductive, unfair, and likely to lead to worse outcomes for the US and the entire world. The #1 issue is "gEnOcIdE jOe" which is kind of ridiculous given that not just Biden but 90% of the US political establishment supported the same policies, AND we'll end up getting genocide Donald, who will throw away Ukraine, run his own genocide on Central Americans in the US, do the same but worse in Israel (Trump recently said Israel should "finish the job"). Hmm, but maybe some people prefer one of those things.
Seems pretty productive to me, we haven't even finished the primaries yet and the sudden drop in support has pushed Biden from "Humanitarian pause" to openly calling for a temporary ceasfire.
At this rate he might even call for a permanemt ceasefire and halt weapons shipments to Israel in time for the general election, but if we don't let the party know they need to change then they won't.
Seems like its long past time to stop supporting 90% of the political establishment, then.
Admitting that the American public is willing to support genocide out of fear that the wrong genocider might take power is the first step towards changing our political system to send war criminals to the hague instead of the white house.
I saw the 'undecided' crowd (which was a concept that came after criticizing Biden and discouraging voters for months) credited themselves with him making that decision, though I doubt it was the only influence. It's been kind of apparent that political opponents have been using that as an issue against Biden and it is pretty unpopular, not to mention generally wrong, so of course he should change policy. I think they can figure that out themselves too.
Well, if you have figured out a way to stop AIPAC from influencing US politics, great! It's only been about 80 years of sending them billions of dollars in weapons and arms each year. The idea that Americans are going to send their own politicians to international criminal court in the EU is pretty far-fetched. I'd start with Bush, Rice and Cheney personally.
And most people aren't saying you need to vote for Biden in the primary. They're talking about the general.
yes, for the love of all that is holy vote for biden in the general 🫠🙏🙏
So if you get that, then why are you blatantly misrepresenting the discussion?
you have it backwards. here is a list of comments which were blatantly misrepresenting the uncommitted movement. i am seeking to correct that misrepresentation.
Do you have context for those comments to show they are misrepresenting the uncommitted movement?
All of those comments appear to be talking about the general.
the post was removed by mods and was a meme showcasing the percent of voters who had voted “uncommitted” in the primaries. unfortunately i didn’t get a local copy of the meme before it was taken down.
So even though the comments are obviously talking about the general, since the primary clearly doesn't determine who becomes president, we're just supposed to believe that they're actually talking about the primary?
Interesting.
no exactly! those comments failed to understand how the primaries work. and were attacking people who voted uncommitted in the primary, because they wrongly thought the meme was about the general.
this entire deal stemmed out of people not understanding the system and then knee-jerk calling people fascist for doing their best.
i hope this makes sense.
Even if that's true, your meme doesn't represent it as people misinterpreting voters in the primary as talking about the general.
Like, not even close.
it is :) proof
certainly true. my meme is intentionally simplifying the situation. i won’t contest that. memes are bad for nuance anyway. the real nuance is in the paragraph i posted directly below the meme.
i hope that’s enough and i welcome any criticism or feedback on that text.
But again, people aren't talking about the primary, at best they misunderstood people as talking about the general in one thread (which I really just don't believe at face-value based on the misrepresentation here)
Your text doesn't elaborate on that at all, and your meme totally misreprents the whole argument.
Sure it's a meme, but it's pretty deliberately dishonest.