The Uncommitted movement announced it wouldn’t be endorsing Kamala Harris for president over her failure to push for a new U.S. policy on the Gaza war.
  • evenglow@lemmy.world
    26·
    3 months 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.

  • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    24·
    3 months 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
    16·
    3 months 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.worldEnglish
    14·
    3 months ago

    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·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
        2·
        3 months ago

        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
      16·
      3 months ago

      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.worldEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        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
          6·
          3 months ago

          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.worldEnglish
            5·
            3 months 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?

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      1·
      3 months ago

      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.