Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.
“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.
Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.
“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.
The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”
Just about 50% further away than America is wide...
Like, did you think putting something in all caps meant sarcasm?
Usually people do it to show that they're being literal.
Did you just not know and instead of admitting it you're trying to say that you knew it was 3,700 miles away and intentionally said that was close?
Genocide that we're violating international law to supply munitions for is not "shitty things"
Pissing them off? By telling them to stop the current genocide or not to attack another foreign government at the same time that's allied with multiple nuclear powers?
Well, that's sunk cost fallacy... And over those 50 years almost every US president has had to threaten to cut off aid to prevent it from progressing to this. It wasn't till Biden came into office after 50 years of saying he'll always support Israel for them to take it this far. Biden isn't going to stop, and neither is Israel
I'm just trying to get your pov, but I can't follow it logically
No. I'm saying not involving an ocean and being right next to Ukraine is a lot closer. But I guess you don't know anything about logistics or strategy when it comes to war. So do you. Keep thinking it's an easy choice. I'm done arguing about distances on a map when it is much closer than we are.
What?
In both cases Russia and Israel are partly invading to get ocean access, but you're coming out of nowhere with that...
Like, none of what you're saying is making any sense.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Closer than we are to what?
You mean Israel is closer to Russia than America?
That's not true either.
But like, you're the one that only wants to talk about the distance you were wrong about, there's lots of other wrong things you said I'm trying to explain here...