As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party’s complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party’s failure to address it.
Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you’re voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.
I stand with the protesters. The same thing happened to activists for police reform. They went through every channel and protested just to be used as a set piece and watch the Biden admin increase police funding, and didn’t do much of anything. Liberals always disapprove of any form of accountability or protest. You will never please them unless you’re mindlessly Blue No Matter Who.
Absolutely. But voting is also strategic. I’m not seeing any sense of strategy behind the actions of the protesters now, as other commenters have pointed out. I stand with their goal. But until someone coherently explains how their actions lead to less harm in Gaza I’m not going to support said actions.
people protesting is supposed to lead to our leaders listening and changing course
women’s suffrage
war protests in the 60s
protests to end segregation and demand better rights
list goes on and on
both parties now though have gotten to where they instantly demonize protesters demanding better
for example, pushing out tons of propaganda to the US citizens that enforces division and separation
I don’t think it’s demonization to say “your protests are counterproductive to your cause given the current electoral reality”.
Paraphrasing the other commenter, politicians are tools. So are political parties. The Democratic party is the best tool we have right now to preventing the GOP from backsliding not only with Gaza but with a slew of other progressive priorities. I don’t see a lot of these protesters being able to recognize that, and it speaks in their strategy.
I don’t think they have the time as each day more of their family and loved ones are being erased from existence. They’re protesting nicely and mostly respectfully considering things and it still isn’t good enough. The only resources they have is protests and the uncommitted movement. Outside of money there isn’t any other ways to get people in power to keep their word.
Which is never gonna change unless we start supporting parties that actually want that change. And for right now, that’s a third party.
How many times have Republicans been in charge enough to change it? How many times have Democrats been in charge enough to change it?
And neither party has. And neither party wants to change it.
And people here on Lemmy keep saying stuff like, “But but THIS isn’t the election to work on that. Next time!” Which is what both parties have been saying for the last 50 years.
They’ve had plenty of opportunity to change things. And they haven’t. And they won’t.
And I’ll never vote Democrat or Republican until one of them actually makes the change.
That’s fine, I’m not interested in changing your mind. To everyone else, Socialist’s point here is silly. There is no mechanism for obtaining significant legislative power by voting 3rd party in a FPTP system. It might feel good and you can then write a wall of text about how awesome and moral you are, but you can only affect this election in one of two ways by voting for a specific candidate. You are either benefiting the 1st or 2nd place candidate no matter what you do. This is a mathematical fact when dealing with a FPTP system, like ours. I strongly support changing more elections to a RCV (or STAR) style system which would completely change the calculus here, but only one party has even come close to supporting those changes on a wide scale (guess which one).
This fact alone negates everything 3rd party people claim. It’s been pointed out so many times on Lemmy it should make you question why they continue to push this stuff while claiming they want the exact change they are knowingly fighting against. The path forward and the power needed to pass real progressive change is through the Democratic party, not against it. I’m not giving up the largest tool we have to stop the GOP because you would rather throw a temper tantrum. If someone has a better strategy than “well if everyone just voted for a 3rd party!” I’m all ears, but I’m not holding my breath.
The idea that voting third-party is a wasted vote in a FPTP system overlooks the broader impact that third-party votes can have on the political landscape.
Every vote sends a message about what policies and values are important to voters, and this can influence the platforms of major parties in future elections.
Sure, it’s true that our system is designed to favor two major parties, but dismissing third-party candidates entirely ignores the historical fact that significant social and political changes often start with minority voices pushing against the status quo.
Counting on the Democratic Party to implement progressive change assumes that the party will prioritize those changes, which history has shown that they are not doing. They’ve had PLENTY of time where they were in charge to implement major changes, but they so need need to change the status quo.
Voting your conscience isn’t a temper tantrum; it’s a commitment to pushing for a political system that truly represents a wider range of views.
Well, you do realize that almost half of the country won’t vote for your candidate, right? Are they ALL wrong and only you are right? The fact that HALF OF THE COUNTRY doesn’t want your candidate to be president, should make you question things as well.
Real change requires challenging the status quo, not just reinforcing it.
Explain, in detail, how voting 3rd party leads to positive change in this general election for President of the United States. Tell me how “challenging the status quo” here is an effective use of resources and risk when swing states are being declined by 10s of thousands of votes? There’s no mechanism for the change you’re suggesting will come from voting 3rd party this election.
All you can do is write a wall about how bad the Democrats are, because that’s the only message you care about spreading, and why I don’t find engaging with you to be worth my time typically. Have a nice Sunday, I’m done with this one!
ETA: Everyone notice below, they just repeat the same exact talking points over and over. They will never backup any of the claims they are making. It’s all fluff.
I actually despise Republicans as much as the Democrats. You all have become the same party.
Voting third-party sends a clear message that there’s significant dissatisfaction with the two major parties, pushing them to address issues they might otherwise ignore.
It might not lead to an immediate victory in a general election, but it helps build momentum for future elections, strengthens the visibility of alternative platforms, and can influence the policies of major parties as they try to recapture lost voters. In swing states, every vote is critical, but voting for the candidate who aligns with your values isn’t a waste—it’s a demand for better representation.
There’s no guarantee that voting for a major party will lead to positive change either, especially if they feel secure in your vote without earning it.
Engaging in this process is about long-term strategy, not just the immediate outcome of a single election.
The whole thing about, “Oh good ideas, but let’s not do that THIS election… THIS election is too important!” has been said for the last 50 fucking years.
For the last 50 years, people keep saying variations of “Not THIS election!” and “But THIS election isn’t for that…” and “But, but, what if xxxxxx wins? THIS election to too important!”
Dude, 50 years. So guess what? No more waiting.
I’m voting third party now. And in the future, until something changes. Because every fucking year you will keep crying, “But not THIS election…”
I don’t vote out of fear of who MIGHT win. I vote my values. Green Party this election for me. :)
Well said!
These people think haggling starts with a guarantee to buy the product. They get ripped off, then go back for more