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.”
People who are uncommitted because of Gaza are fools to think that their reticence won’t have any consequences in the country.
Having said that there is no hope for Gazans from US since both the parties are bought and paid for by the Israelis.
Russia take note - US only lets those foreign countries to influence the election who are willing to buy both the parties.
Nobody is claiming that and you’re attacking a strawman.
The problem is we don’t want to reward politicians for their bad behavior “because Trump is worse” or get blood on our own hands by voting for someone who will continue the same deadly failed policies. Have you ever heard of the Trolley Problem? It’s not as straightforward as you think.
The article is about the group publicly saying it is important to vote with the intention of keeping Donald out even while they cannot endorse Harris. Maybe you should join them?
This trolley problem has a large number of the same people across two tracks, but one of the tracks has a large number of additional people that the other track bypasses. It is not a complicated trolley problem to solve.
“A philosophy problem that has existed for thousands of years can be easily solved by me!”
That tells me all I need to know about you.
If you want to try some reading comprehension you’ll see I disagree it is a trolley problem at all. Pretending it is despite having the difference pointed out does tell us a lot about you.
I think on this issue I’ll consider the thoughts of the group in the article, instead of someone dead set on describing the issue as something it is not.
The Trolley Problem is all about how there’s frequently no good options in a scenario. People are gonna die whether or not you make a decision, and you’d be right to walk away from that lever if there were equal amounts of death on each track. But there frequently are not equal situations. Six people versus one person. A kid versus an old man. 7 Nuns versus 10 Lawyers. The person you love the most in the world versus the person you hate the most in the world.
Sure, you have to be discerning and look for any tracks that don’t have something tied to them. That’s why I mention that self-driving cars, thanks to their sensors, don’t have to hit the bus full of school children or the SUV full of nuns – they’ve seen the bus and the SUV and the idiot merging into traffic and the idiot on their phone and everything else due to their 27 different cameras and their LADAR and RADAR and so on, and to the advanced AI computer that can pay attention to all those sensors at once, and have calculated a path to escape to the track that doesn’t have anyone being killed in the phony concocted examples of why AI cars are bad.
But in regards to the Presidency, there literally is a Trolley Problem here, and it IS as straight forward as you say it isn’t. Come January of next year, one of two people will take the Oath of Office.
Jill Stein, Cornel West, Chase Oliver (seriously, I had to go look this guy up!), and whoever else promises you they can fix a Broken Washington won’t be elected to that office. Period. End of line. All they’ll accomplish is taking votes away from the major party candidate closest aligned to your positions, and ensure the other guy gets into office. The track of no genocide is an illusion, a mirage that fades the moment you look at it too hard. I know. It sucks. We all want more options for people to represent us. But those are the rules, and have been the rules for literally this country’s entire existence. It sucks, but denying reality won’t help. Come January, one of two people will take the oath of office: a Republican and a Democrat, just like it has been for the past 150 years, and even before, albeit with Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist or Democratic-Republican vs. Whig.
I’m going to vote for the person who will do the least harm to those I care about. I’m going to push and push hard for everyone else to join me in voting for her. I’m going to constantly call out this ‘but third party!’ stuff. Because for everything you have accused Harris of allowing, Trump will not only do that, but a dozen other hateful things.
All that talk and you still missed the point. You’re trying to tell me that a liberal version of Genocide is somehow better than a Republican version of genocide and that I should try to enthusiastically make one happen.
Why do you think it’s so hard for others to pull the lever for Harris despite that? Harris is part of an administration that helped kill family members of my neighbors. If you can’t see why this makes it hard, I can’t help you.
Because Russia has a long history of propping up third party distractors, especially those who are friendly to Russia’s causes, and another of their tools, useful idiots and bought-and-paid for bad actors (note: Mods, not accusing THIS poster of this, but you can’t disagree such people exist and operate here on Lemmy and on other forums across the Internet) spread bullshit across the web to convince people that the Shitgibbon with his plans to directly enable his fellow authoritarian shithead to exterminate and/or subjugate the Palestinians AND his plans to let Russia do the same RE: Ukraine AND his plans to bring that same subjugation/extermination to LGBTQ+, non-Christian, minority, female, and non-Conservative populations HERE IN THE USA is somehow better than letting Team Biden/Harris have 4 more years.
You don’t like me calling that out? Well, you can fuck right off because I’m not going to stop.
Not everyone who opposes Biden’s policies on Gaza is a Russian plant. We know third parties are not viable, but we also want to pressure Democrats. This isn’t hard, and you thinking this is all Russian conspiracy and that you wanna curse out your political allies is a Feinstein-level of out-of-touch rambling. Peace.
None of what this poster said countered a thing of what I said, and all its personal attack did was concede the debate.
American political parties are not in charge of Israel. Believe it or not, Israel has their own elections and elects their own parties.
Maybe it’s not that both parties are paid off, but that stopping a still-young and flawed democracy from being swallowed up by a far right religious dictatorship sworn to kill every Jew in the middle east in the name of a new Islamic Caliphate, is an issue with resounding bipartisan support.
Oh, you know what else it could be, has a lot of bipartisan support? Not stabbing our allies in the back, just on principle.
Huh, maybe not everything you find revulsive is a Jewish conspiracy to control on the world.
Anything said against Israel is not anti Semitic. It is just realistic.
Instead of being swallowed by islamic caliphate, the ethnostate of Israel is controlled by a far right, islamophobic government.
Preventing world recognized genocide is not stabbing allies in the back.
oof, that’s quite the Islamophobic take there
Nothing of substance to say so call me a racist, couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Do you have a more accurate description for the Iranian leadership?
Why would I entertain your a-historical reactionary bullshit with a substantive response? If I said ‘Hezbollah was justified in firing missiles into Tel Aviv everyday because Israel is a blood-thirsty religious apartheid state dead-set on killing every Muslim in the middle east in the name of a ‘Judeo-Christian crusade’’, would you see it as an honest attempt at good-faith debate?
Of course not.