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).
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.