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.
“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.
I guess I’m not sure I understand how exactly he is the accelerationist candidate in the first place. On a vibes level, I get why people think that. But logistically, what can he do that is substantially different from what the dems are already doing. Rabble rousing up racists is about all I can think of off the top of my head, but he’s already doing that while not being in office, isn’t he? Anything on a legislative level, he’ll have advocacy groups fighting him and presumably the dems will at least put in some effort to fight him on stuff, to sell the continued cycle that they need to get him out, rah rah rah, like they did the last time he was in office (unless I am wrong and they didn’t even try to fight him for real the last time?).
I suppose he could have an administration that deregulates more stuff or something? But then people are going to blame him nonstop any time a piece of infrastructure fails or a “natural” disaster (hypercharged by climate change) happens.
Maybe I’m underestimating how much the prez can do alone, idk. Just seems like a lot of what gets talked about w/ regards to him “being worse” is based on the perception that he wants to be worse and not based on what he can logistically do while in office.
deleted by creator
If it actually is the worst case scenario Dems are scaring about then Americans need to learn to fight.
This is a great point and one I don’t think gets enough attention in general. One way in which it comes up for me is: what exactly are dems planning to do if Kamala wins on paper, but Trump challenges the results and rabble rouses people against them? Are they actually willing to send cops and military, if necessary, to put him behind bars, knowing that could enrage his fanatical base further? Why haven’t they put him behind bars long before now, for denying the results once before, or for any number of offenses?
We are supposed to believe a guy like that is simultaneously a huge threat to “democracy” and will be… stopped via voting. With what institutions, I don’t know. They could have invented any number of reasons to throw the book at him years ago. They could have cracked down on the kind of people they claim are such a threat. Instead, they’re sitting on their hands as if authority is derived only from a ballot box. They want us to believe “democracy is at stake,” but are unwilling to act like it is and will even rush to condemn any attempt on the guy’s life.
It makes no sense if Trump is a real, existential threat to the current system. On the other hand, it makes a kind of sense if the power brokers don’t view him as one and only view him as a different flavor of it, who can be controlled like any other president.
I’m sorry, I meant more to agree with your original assessment but point out the “why the liberals think he’s worse than Kamalah” arguments, then further debunk them.
Probably the only place he’ll be ACTIVELY worse is LGBTQ rights. Democrats aren’t really doing anything useful, just not going out of their way to actually protect them.
Fair enough. And you’re good, I appreciate the discussion on it in fact, I’m just challenging the general mindset in play that I see. Mean nothing personal by it. Part of my train of thought here is, if liberals actually do have a legitimate point, they need to back it up with a how - not just vague waving at intent. Especially considering that stated intent stands for just about nothing with US politicians; their donors, along with the existing levers of imperialism, seem to be the defining factor there, rather than what they say.
deleted by creator
"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.
