Skip to main content


I'm not happy with the Biden administration's actions on Gaza, but I want to be clear: Saying, "I don't care whether a vindictive, unethical, dangerous man is elected President and destroys the environment, robs women and people of color of rights, weaponizes the Justice system, and harms millions of people because I don't like Biden's stand on Gaza" is deeply idiotic.

You don't get everything you want in any candidate. So you vote for the one that comes closest to what you want. #VoteBlue

in reply to Augie Ray

giving up your most effective leverage on the most powerful office in the world, when you have a chance to get real changes to policy, is what's actually idiotic.

It's irresponsible. It throws away the chance to save lives. That would be deeply shameful.

Arab Americans are using their best possible tactic to change policy. It also happens to be how democracy is supposed to work.

in reply to Evan Prodromou

@evan
You don't get "leverage" by saying, "I am not going to vote for you." What you accomplish is getting that candidate to look elsewhere for votes.
in reply to Kyozou

@kyozou
Yes, you do get leverage that way.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arab-american-leaders-listening-kamala-harris-moves-shore-112359426

in reply to Matthew Loxton

@mloxton voting "Uncommitted", withholding endorsements, working the structures of power, and protesting in the streets.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uncommitted-democratic-delegates-dnc-kamala-harris-gaza/

in reply to Evan Prodromou

@evan
That opportunity passed on June 8th when the primaries ended.
It is now August 4th.
What are you doing NOW?

@augieray

in reply to Matthew Loxton

@mloxton@med-mastodon.com @augieray if you read the article, you would see that Arab Americans and their progressive supporters are negotiating new planks in the Democratic Party platform to support a two-state solution and a permanent ceasefire.
in reply to Evan Prodromou

@evan

I think the concern is that the consequence of withholding votes for the Compromise Party might result in victory for the Violence Party (Who Think Compromise Is Weakness)

Wouldn't it be more effective to elect the party who has generally been somewhat more receptive to genuinely good change, and then organize and scare the shit out of them to get them to actually do those things? (the ones we can't just do ourselves, anyway)

This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to LeBonk

@LeBonk That is the leverage. "We will not endorse you/vote for you unless X." I agree, it's a very risky game.