Pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement refuses to endorse Harris
Pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement refuses to endorse Harris
www.nbcnews.com
Pro-Palestinian Uncommitted Movement refuses to endorse Harris
42 comments
-
-
Could it be because she said, 'Israel has a right to defend itself'? Using the language of an apartheid state and genocide defender. I've read her books, she's a classic example of someone who wants to appear progressive, while trying to stay within the boundaries of the establishment.
-
When she first became the candidate, I listened to a podcast covering her entire career. The sad thing is that she used to stand for progressive principles, even when it was politically dangerous to do so. Over time, though, she's become more and more conservative. For example, she used to be against the death penalty; now she's for it.
-
-
Pffft, "Uncommitted"? Try "Abandoned". The democrat party has lost my support for as long as the democrat party continues to exist; because they are irreparably tied to genocide. Collaborators, comforters, aides, and abettors; one and all.
-
From NPR's article:
"At this time, our movement 1) cannot endorse > Vice President Harris; 2) opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing; and 3) 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,"
I'm glad to see they're not advocating for Trump or a third-party candidate that would help him win the election.
-
or a third-party candidate that would help him win the election.
Y'all still beating the 'wah spoilers' dead horse, huh? When will you settlers understand that anyone not voting for your genocider is a failing of the policies the candidate-murderer espouses, not the voter themselves?
Rhetorical question. You never will; because it allows you to maintain your aggrieved victimhood while simultaneously sating your genocidal nature. -
They don't need to endorse her, but the only smart move is to vote for her.
-
The only move, really. That should say something about the system, but it still is the only — and right — move.
-
-
- opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing;
No they fucking don't. They're sitting on their fucking hands.
-
They’re sitting on their fucking hands.
The only just answer when the only options presented are both for genocide. History will know who collaborated by whose metadata is tied to the ballots-- and trust, with how many data breaches have happened up til now? People will find out who, when, and where; to a granular level.
Honestly? I think when that day comes, the principled should put up a site the same way Kyiv and Tel Aviv did, lists with names, faces, SSNs, and 'last known location' data for every single Amerikan collaborator in genocide from say, I dunno... 2012 to present day? Wonder how much would change if naming and shaming were possible.
-
I'm confused by your statement. As far as I know, Trump has advocated for escalating violence in Gaza and everywhere else.
-
42 comments
Because in a binary decision between bad and worse, there is still a preference. And when abstaining has historically favored the worse choice, doing nothing is bad.
Does the democratic party hold no responsibility here in your eyes? It's obvious democrats understand the flaws of First past the post voting, longer then ive been alive!
So why hasn't the states they control switched to a voting system like Ranked Choice voting where there is no spoiler effect?
You don't get to harp on people voting outside the two party system and then do nothing to resolve the issues you bring up.
So Kamala Harris endorsed Trump for them?
Funny! I have no sympathy for white supremacists like you and the rest of your party.