The āUncommittedā movement seeking a change in the Democratic Partyās approach to the war in Gaza on Thursday announced it is not ready to support Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris ā while urging voters not to back Republican nominee Donald Trump or third-party candidates who could help Trump win the November election.
The āUncommittedā group āopposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,ā the statement continues. Additionally, the group is ānot 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 countryās broken electoral college system.ā
That analysis makes no sense on multiple levels. First of all, since I donāt live in a swing state, my downballot/midterm votes are far more important than my vote for president. Second, if my vote for president was so important, that would be all the more reason for me to use it as leverage. Third, the fundamental dynamics are the same for downballot races as the race for president, there is nothing unique about the presidential race that would mean I should treat it differently. If withholding a vote is an effective strategy downballot, then it is an effective strategy in the presidential race. And if the risk of Trump getting elected is too great to employ that strategy in the presidential race, then the risk of another Republican getting elected downballot should be a deterrent too. Lastly, there is virtually no chance that Kamala could be pressured to change her position during the midterms when she herself is not up for reelection.
The only way I can make any sense of your logic is if Trump is uniquely horrible compared to other Republicans, and I donāt really consider that to be the case.
Well, letās see. For the past 20 years, my entire adult life, my ideals have been saying that we should stop slaughtering people in the middle east. In that time, the democrats ran Kerry, a hawk, Obama, a hawk, Clinton, a hawk, Biden, a hawk, and now Harris, a hawk. The result of that was nearly a million people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, some more in other countries like Yemen, and now more and at a faster rate than ever in Palestine. And what exactly do they have to show for any of it in terms of making peopleās lives better? I think itās pretty clear which side the failure is on.
ok well in this case it just makes complaining moot, because for some reason, youāre admitting that youāre going to hold a worthless protest vote that means nothing. So thatās cool.
only in the case of third party candidacy voter drain, or a pretty confident election advantage, assuming you have like 5% of all voters or something silly. Otherwise itās more than likely going to mean nothing, or almost nothing. And again this doesnāt assuage the previously mentioned problems with the alternate candidate.
in terms of how elections work, i suppose so, in terms of how power works, not really. Down ballots are much more ambiguous and nebulous than primary candidacy, by the virtue of there being like 500 congress members. as opposed to one president.
also, i didnāt realize that both trump and kamala were running for downballot positions.
generallyā¦ Yes, however only generally, iāve already laid out the primary uses and technicalities for this, so iām not going to repeat myself because you canāt read. Itās not that complicated of an idea.
do you unironically think that in a vacuum, if you were to elect kamala harris, and one republican congressman for example. That it would functionally equivalent to you not voting at all? And then trump having the potential to win, and you still having no options down ballot. This is an objectively worse position to put yourself in. You simply have less leverage there.
i donāt believe the 22nd prevents VPs from running for presidency for a term. That would be weird. Unless youāre implying as a russian bot would do, that kamala is literally only a one term pony. Which would be odd.
You do know that politicians generally push for legislation throughout their entire term right? Itās not just, the beginning, and only the beginning. Generally you see early legislative policy, some through the mid terms, and then some late in the cycle nearing the end.
??? I mean if you specifically only care about israel palestine maybe but trump literally tried to overthrow democracy. How is that not markedly worse than literally any other republican, who has not yet tried to do that.
curious how you only list 20 years of foreign military policy, and not republican policies. Or domestic policy at all.
Seems to me like you only care about foreign military policy. And donāt get me wrong, itās a problem, but the war on terror is over, weāve pulled out of afghan. This shitās literally done right now. The war on drugs might be another thing, paired with more democracy war, however unpopular that may be, itās the only realistic way to solve the immigration crisis, the one that republicans constantly make shit up about.
regardless, iāll leave you a link to a wikipedia article, only the most reputable of sources for my internet squabbles.
some ābed side readingā as i like to refer to it.
This is even more incoherent than ever, but whatever, I guess Iāll try.
Isnāt it your job to show that voting for Harris would be meaningful? If my vote is meaningless, then you should have no problem with me voting however I personally prefer.
How does there being more congress members change anything about the dynamics weāre discussing?
I genuinely cannot even begin to follow your logic. Walk me through how you got from point A to point B here.
The fact that Harris isnāt running downballot is even more reason why your argument is completely nonsensical. Why should I withhold my vote from a different candidate, who might even be pro-Palestine, instead of withholding it from the person Iām actually criticizing? This is, again, a point in my favor.
No, I think that would be worse than not voting at all, because my vote in down ballot races is more important than the presidential race.
I donāt know what this is even saying.
Again, I am extremely confused by your logic here and cannot even begin to fathom how you got from point A to point B.
The only thing I can think of is if youāre using āmidtermsā to refer to the next presidential election in 2028, as opposed to the, you know midterm elections that happen every two years, the next being in 2026. Kamala will not be up for reelection in the 2026 midterms, because, and this is true, presidents serve four year terms. Do you think presidents having four year terms is Russian misinformation?
Iām not invested in protecting the capitalist, imperialist state. It doesnāt represent me at all and frequently makes my life worse, I have zero loyalty towards it.
George W. Bush started two major wars that got nearly a million people killed, he instituted unprecedented and illegal mass surveillance programs that removed any semblance of civil liberties that once existed in this country, he used indefinite detention without trial - and he did everything with the full support of the Democrats, who have happily continued his policies without any challenge at all (despite the fact that they were allegedly meant as āemergency powersā). Trump is bad but his presidency was nowhere near as bad as that of Bush.
Yes, I was discussing Democratic foreign military policy because that is the topic that weāre discussing. I donāt mind discussing domestic policy, but those issues are not unrelated. The only way weād have the funds to do the kinds of things that need to happen domestically is by cutting the unbelievably massive military budget, which is higher than the next 9 countries combined.
But even if we could, I am opposed to imperialism even if the spoils of that imperialism were distributed to the people. So bad foreign policy but good domestic policy would not be satisfactory. But even that isnāt on the table, the profits of all this killing go straight to the top.
And no, itās not over. The war in Afghanistan is (now replaced with sanctions to impose starvation), but weāre still involved in other places like Gaza and Yemen. We may not have boots on the ground, but my priority is not on whether American soldiers are being placed in danger, itās with stopping the violence towards the people living there.
What on earth are you even talking about? Going to war with Mexico or something?
Not a single one of these applies to me but your lazy condescension is noted.
i have previously stated why kamala is a good pick in the first post. I laid out why your reasoning was faulty, you were the one originally claiming that your vote had a meaning behind it, since you were going to bother protest voting, otherwise you admit youāve been sitting here and screaming at a wall for like a year.
Ultimately what defines a vote as meaningful or meaningless is up to the individual voter, you could do math and statistics to figure out how much it matters, but thatās extremely complicated, and not completely accurate (as polling demonstrates) itās simply more effective to shift broad public opinion on things like policy and issues, rather than a specific candidate vote.
by dilution, this is the reason the house has so many members, technically its for population representation, and that is true. But youāre still fighting against an n/500 or so people, as opposed to like n/2 people. Itās harder to influence the president, but the president is also more wholly encompassing of power, whereas itās easier to put a congressman in power, but they have a lot less power.
that was a shitpost, because your statement about downballots made no sense lol.
ok so let me get this one straight, you think electing kamala voting republican downballot is worse than not voting at all, but you also think voting down ballot is simultaneously more important because? I donāt understand your comprehension of the voting system at all, it makes no sense. Why would voting down ballot be more important than voting for presidential? Do you not want there to be a president at all?
i listed your available options, the first one being pulling the most optimal strategy to minimize impact as much as possible, vs thinking voting is useless unless the result is exactly equivalent to what you want, which would mean you wouldnāt care about voting for downballot, because very few people in downballot are going to agree with your positions, and even less of their positions will matter in the government. Simply due to the dilution of power.
again, shitpost because i didnāt understand what you were saying, but it appears you were talking about kamala harris not running for mid terms, without mentioning that, (unless i missed it) who is currently running for president. I thought you were implying kamala couldnāt have a second presidential term, because yknow, sheās running for president. Which would be really weird.
trump is literally akin to a fascist, his actions are matched to that of a literal dictator, the only difference is that heās so stupid it didnāt work. People like hitler, the current president of Venezuela, Haiti i think is currently run by a gang. You would probably also consider netanyahu a dictator, which is probably a reason for you to dislike him.
also, democracy != capitalism?? democracy is just a mechanism for voting, whereas capitalism is a mechanism for moving goods through an economy in the most effective manner.
trump, you mean the guy who thinks haitian immigrants are eating dogs? The guy who literally tried to overthrow democracy, i cannot overstate this enough, this is objectively worse than what bush did. The guy who hired and fired people at will, because they disagreed with him? You mean the guy who fired his AAG (because he couldnāt get a real AG who agreed with him) for 3 hours, until his entire fucking DOJ threatened to resign because a guy who deals with oil spills was the current and acting AG?
You mean the guy whose personal attorney said to the public, that chris krebs should be ātaken out at dawn and shotā The guy that fired the same guy previously mentioned, chris krebs for saying the election was āthe most secure election in historyā The same guy that literally told his DOJ to commit a federal crime and lie to the states saying there āwas actual voter fraudā when there wasnāt. Fun fact, trump suggested multiple times, while in office, that we āuse nuclear weaponsā as you can imagine, this went nowhere, very fucking quickly, because this is fucking insane.
like obviously the war on terror was bad, and it had implications for security and privacy violations, as well as some rights violations, but iām not sure those wouldāve even applied considering that was likely within a military context, and we have a separate court for those problems. Also, none of these issues are new. Literally just look back through history, every military everywhere has done this stuff at least once.
But you think that this was worse than what trump tried to do? Which was just straight up ending democracy. Presumably so he could ravage the rest of the global world.
i would like to know what percentage of GDP that the US military budget is. As of the last ten years or so.
spoiler
hereās a little hint, itās 4% roughly, of GDP. Itās roughly 20% of the federal governments budget, as far as per GDP spending goes, weāre doing pretty good. The only country rivaling us currently is china, most likely due to their massive economic power.
but would you consider overthrowing dictatorships in other countries to also be imperialism? Unrelated, but this is something iāve been thinking about lately, with the talk about the border crisis among republicans. There are two things we can do that will ultimately solve it. 1 is to get rid of the cartels, 2 is to improve the living standards of the countries these people are fleeing from.
allowing immigration is good, but the cartel abuses it quite excessively, blocking it helps, but again, doesnāt solve the problem. Thereās not really a great solution here.
anyway getting back to the topic on hand here, even if you donāt like imperialism, how do we effectively combat the imperialism of other countries like china? The most effective ironically, seems to be more imperialism. Imperialism in some capacity, whatever definition you have of it, because the classical one doesnāt really fit, seems to be a constant throughout human history.
sure, but sanctions arenāt a war. Also, as far as sanctions go, they arenāt meant to be a good thing, theyāre meant to be bad, thatās the whole fucking idea. If they werenāt bad nobody would be using them. And even if it is imposing starvation on afghani people, itās only because of the whims of the taliban. Also due to governmental failure as well, but thatās more complicated, especially since this has been a multi decade problem. (the pull out can be blamed on trump btw, just an indication of his foreign policy)
you realize american soldiers literally volunteer to be placed in dangerous situations right? Itās not like these people are getting drafted like in vietnam.
the cartels, the mexican government is actively trying to combat it, but itās not going super well, and we have a very clear and definite benefit in assisting the mexican government with that goal as well (trade and illict smuggling of drugs) also the people of mexico as well, they would probably appreciate not being extorted and killed by the cartels.
again, mostly a shitpost to the IP shit especially, for some reason IP people are issues voters, and i donāt understand why. Theyāre going nowhere pretty quickly with that one.