this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
18 points (63.2% liked)

politics

19073 readers
3979 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

The decision by Uncommitted not to back Harris may not hamper her chances at winning the White House in November, but it bodes poorly for the progress Democrats had aspired to make in engaging disenchanted voters — not just their Arab and Muslim constituents.

I mean, the Uncommitted org is pretty much a single issue org so there's not much to work with or talk about. I still think when Kamala wins there will be a course change concerning Israel because Democrats know how important holding the White House for 12 years is. Right now the Presidential election is more important than single issue voters.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Uncommitted is a terrible name for a movement.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point is clear messaging that’ll pull voters like the spoiler parties and candidates.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m uncommitted but I’m not Uncommitted.

Dumb name. Needs more originality.

American Uncommitted Voters, AUV? UV? UAV?

People love acronyms of clear terms. BLM.

[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

UAV has a little bit of spice to it

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago

Peppering our politicians.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 15 points 1 month ago

If they’re dumb enough to think that shit won’t be worse under Trump- I wouldn’t meet with them either. They’re basically a lost cause of unreasonable demands.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Harris has clearly declared her support for a 2 state solution, meaning a free Palestine.
So when they say they won't support Harris, have they considered where Trump stands? Trump will gladly let the genocide continue, and let Israeli settlers take it all.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Literally all Kamala has to do is hear them out.

If she wouldn't have backed out of letting them speak at the DNC, we wouldn't even be talking about this still.

Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.

Unfortunately she's taken a page out of Biden and Hillary's book; if you don't have an R next to your name, she's not trying to get your vote.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.

If she listened then did nothing, then the message would be she's heartless after hearing about all the suffering.

There was no way to win this for Harris. Politically she did the right thing for the campaign.

I'm also hoping that this is just to win the election, and that once Harris is elected then she will have more freedom regarding this topic. (I can also see how she and Biden might privately disagree on this topic, and how Biden - as the sitting President - might have won out, but that then should change once the Presidents change.)

I might be totally unrealistic and off base here, unfortunately. But I do know that if Harris wins, it's a better outcome for Gaza and Palestine than if she loses.

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

She can talk to them after she starts her administration.

Not before. Saying anything about the Middle East at all is political poison to her campaign. There is nothing she can say that won't hurt her.

Throwing Kamala on the crucible of pro/anti Israel activism right now is self-centered narcissistic reasoning that serves nobody.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That would make sense if she wasn't saying anything about the genocide...

Instead she's running misleading videos that are edited to make it sound like she supports Gaza. While cutting out the parts about never stopping support to Israel, who have been committing a genocide in Gaza for almost a year now

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/harris-targets-arab-voters-with-new-ad-highlighting-gaza-suffering/ar-AA1qNZB6

If Trump did that, we'd all call him out for lying, especially if while.doing that he refused to meet with anyone.

Kamala is the VP and candidate for president, why wouldn't she be able to talk to voters about America's support of genocide?

What other political stances isn't she allowed to talk about?

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A president can't really unilaterally end support for Israel, that'd have to be an act of Congress. And if any president ever did try that, they'd be eviscerated. The anti-Israel wing of the Democrats is vanishingly small, even after this Gaza war. It certainly won't make or break this election.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A president can’t really unilaterally end support for Israel

Really?

Biden unilaterally went around Congress for an arms shipment...

It only works one way?

Not to mention you didn't address a single thing I mentioned...

I said:

Kamala is the VP and candidate for president, why wouldn’t she be able to talk to voters about America’s support of genocide?

And you came away with:

A president can’t really unilaterally end support for Israel

In what world is listening to th Dem voting base on policy preference "unilaterally end support for Israel"?

Did you mean to reply to me?

Expectations are really that low that all it would take is listening.

I would be really surprised if Uncommitted were willing to endorse Harris if all she did was listen and commit to nothing for them.

Unfortunately she’s taken a page out of Biden

I mean, this worked really well for Biden in 2020 though, right?

if you don’t have an R next to your name, she’s not trying to get your vote.

Recall what I said in the other post about the thin margin and how Republican voters voting for Biden likely lead to his victory, https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521

As for the D's, I heard the frustration, but I mean what choice do we have? Honestly if it were down to this guy vs someone like Bush Jr again, or Newt, or even Richard Nixon, I'd probably have to go with them.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

Meh...fuck 'em. Let them get Trump elected then we'll see where Gaza stands.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

The Intercept - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Intercept:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://theintercept.com/2024/09/19/uncommitted-kamala-harris-gaza/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support