Uncommitted National Movement made it clear that they will not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the US presidency, but more importantly, that they discourage any moves that could lead to a second Trump administration - namely voting for a third party candidate.
They’re running interference for the Democrats. They don’t “endorse” Kamala, but say Trump must be stopped and don’t vote third party. Hmm…
Why are they doing this?
This despite Green Party candidate Jill Stein being the favourite among Muslim-American voters in at least three swing states, and standing almost neck-and-neck with Harris nationwide, according to polling conducted late last month by the Council on American Islamic Relations.
Oh. Well that makes sense. Democrats are afraid of Jill Stein/Greens. According to liberal media/commentstors Stein a Russian puppet who is running the Green Party on Putin’s orders to hurt Democrats and help Trump.
"made it clear that they will not endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for the US presidency, but more importantly, that they discourage any moves that could lead to a second Trump administration - namely voting for a third party candidate. "
So they don’t endorse Harris BUT here is the standard Democrat template line that the greatest threat to our democracy is <insert thing here> so you better not vote third party!
Which leaves them with…a tacit endorsement of Harris. How the hell are you going to try to campaign to “push the candidate left” when you already just admitted you are voting for them no matter what.
“But within the context of our broken electoral college system, we know that voting a third party is ultimately inadvertently supporting Trump,” she said.
It’s such twisted reasoning to say that voting your conscience is actually a vote for someone terrible. I understand the reasoning they’re aiming for, but twisting people’s attempts to have morality against them is sick shit that has consequences. It’s how you get people excusing depraved stuff under the guise of “strategy” and sleeping well at night about it. Tactics must have a clear moral core of direction behind them. Without that, there is no inherent value in them. Which brings me to…
Zeidan says she believes Trump will “exacerbate” the genocide, annex the occupied West Bank and punish pro-Palestinian protesters in the US.
Student protesters have already suffered under Biden. What resources is Trump going to use to “exacerbate” the genocide? To “annex” the West Bank? I’m sure it would really make his popularity go up for him to send US troops over there to get 🔻 . Biden is already funding israel freely without any real condemnation or constraint.
Do these people have claims grounded in analysis of real existing logistics for how any of this is supposed to occur or just vibes?
Would Trump be worse? Probably, in an accelerationist type way, but I don’t think it would be in a materially different way, besides maybe cutting the remaining brakes.
The Democrats will do the same thing but either do it in stages and slower (boiling the frog) or hand wring about some liberal reason it must be this way. It doesn’t materially change. Hell, the Democrats have also proven they can be worse (Obama drones anyone?) while pretending they aren’t, because it’s not OUR soldiers and civilians dying, it’s their terrorists, insurgents, etc.
