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).

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] horsey@lemm.ee 67 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 27 points 8 months ago (12 children)

you misunderstand the us primary election process.

[–] horsey@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago (10 children)

No, I sure don’t. Talking endless shit about Biden will affect more than the primary.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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. :)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] knightly@pawb.social 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] null@slrpnk.net 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And most people aren't saying you need to vote for Biden in the primary. They're talking about the general.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 8 months ago (15 children)

yes, for the love of all that is holy vote for biden in the general 🫠🙏🙏

load more comments (15 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 26 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Enough people doing that would have the predictable result of getting Trump elected,

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I used to believe Democrats when they said stuff like "unlike Republicans, we accept valid criticism of our politicians"

But they've really gone out of their way to disprove this. Their treament of Palestinians and immigrants at the southern border inspires no confidence that they will protect my rights as a LGBTQ+ person. They'd run me over with a tank if it were politically convenient.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I agree that Biden is a piece of shit, but if you don't vote for that piece of shit, then you'll end up with an even worse piece of shit. Don't even think that you're "sending him a message" by not voting or voting third party.

It absolutely sucks that things are like this, but sometimes you have to vote for a genocidal cunt to prevent an even worse genocidal cunt from getting elected, even if it makes you feel bad. Trump becoming the new president would only make things worse for you, and for Palestine, and for Ukraine.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 12 points 8 months ago

you misunderstand what the primaries are. check out the post body text and the other threads here for an explanation.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Third party and proud gang. A key reason we're in this mess is because people keep voting for the same two wolves.

[–] Arctic 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Genuinely not true. Our electoral system more or less requires two candidates de facto to function - it is not a failure of the commons, it's a failure of the systems of government. We need ranked choice voting, at which point we can actually begin to meaningfully remove ourselves from this insanity and have more than two de facto political parties.

Voting third party is the same as not voting in the United States under our current system.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This shit is just spam at this point

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

Do dead kids in Gaza make tasty spam? I usually only get it pork based

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Granixo@feddit.cl 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Both Israel and Palestine countries are led by killing psychos.

There, i said it.

You can ban me now.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

and the us! all three

isn’t that just wonderful

edit: as others pointed out, Hamas =/= Palestine. so maybe look into why you are equating those two 🫤

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This really shouldn't be such a controversial take. Every side of this conflict fucking sucks, and they've all sucked for decades. Israel sucks for electing a fascist, Palestine sucks due to being religious fundamentalists, the U.S. sucks for doing all this in the first place and building Israel up as a superpower in the region, and all the surrounding Middle Eastern powers suck because they claim a Free Palestine is a priority while doing fuck-all to support it. Even if a miracle ceasefire is called, there is no geopolitical will for a Free Palestine, so Israel will just do this again in 10 years once their stockpiles are replenished.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

There's no such thing as a good state. All states gradually trend toward fascism, at varying rates. But this quote from "Anarchism and Its Aspirations" by Cindy Milstein really helped me parse situations like this, especially since it cites Palestine as an example:

If we understand this sense of negative and positive freedom, what appears as a contradictory stance within anarchism makes perfect sense. An anarchist might firmly believe that the Palestinian people deserve to be liberated from occupation, even if that means that they set up their own state. That same anarchist might also firmly believe that a Palestinian state, like all states, should be opposed in favor of nonstatist institutions. A complete sense of freedom would always include both the negative and positive senses—in this case, liberation from occupation and simultaneously the freedom to self-determine. Otherwise, as both actually existing Communist and liberal regimes have demonstrated, “freedom from” on its own will serve merely to enslave human potentiality, and at its most extreme, humans themselves; self-governance is denied in favor of a few governing over others. And “freedom to,” on its own, as capitalism has shown, will serve merely to promote egotistic individualism and pit each against each; self-determination trumps notions of collective good. Constantly working to bring both liberation and freedom to the table, within moments of resistance and reconstruction, is part of that same juggling act of approximating an increasingly differentiated yet more harmonious world.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

look at this motherfucker and his both sidesing JAQing off lol /s

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 8 months ago (4 children)

If the conclusion translates to way stricter conditions for aid (rolling back settlements, carving out pathways for aid, etc.) you won't get called fascist. If your conclusion is to let Trump into office, you are.

The first take is also a problem.

Genocide has a specific definition. The term is probably not applicable to Gaza, and doesn't have to be. A humanitarian crisis also leads to the above mentioned conclusion. Starting to call everything a Genocide that is nowhere near that level primarily has two effects:

First it shuts down any debate about what is happening and what actions to take as a consequence. People who don't agree with the application of the term "genocide" will see you conspiracy theorists or similar. People who agree will write off all arguments as genocide denial. Stunlocking all processes that could lead to action.
Secondly, and most importantly, it muddles the term. Genocide doesn't seem that bad if Israel is doing one or even Canada. While it does draw attention to your current issues, it simultaneously downplays actual recognized genocides.

An example of the second Point is, that a lot of people calling it a genocide are calling for aid to stop and NOT immediate intervention in the ONGOING genocide. Which would be a more appropriate reaction to genocide.

It honestly feels like a psy-op by Trumpels. How is your solution to this Conflict getting Trump - who is all the way on Israels side - into office? The man is one of the reasons for this situation, by cutting aid, by initiating the Abraham Accords, where "The plight of the Palestinians was an afterthought, if even that."

Genious idea, I see no way that can go wrong.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 8 months ago

it simultaneously downplays actual recognized genocides

Tell me you don't understand the extent of what Israel is doing without telling me you don't understand the extent of what Israel is doing.

spoiler

I'ma head out tho so I don't get another strongly worded message in my inbox from the mods

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 8 months ago

Please do a small service for yourself and educate yourself on what's going on in Gaza. Actual fucking Holocaust survivors have spoken against it. Israel is trying to get rid of Palestinians, and every day the already thin veil comes off more and more.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Israel is definitely complicit in genocide

 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group