It seems to require a lack of critical thinking to avoid voting for Harris because of this since Trump will offer no better alternative.
Harris’s position is wrong, of course, but avoiding a Trump presidency is crucial.
A Trump presidency would be categorically worse for Palestine.
People voting for Stein, rather than Harris, over Palestine are the very epitome of bad critical thinking skills.
A main sponsor of the Green Party this election is Russia (1, 2, 3); Stein opposes US support for Ukraine, and essentially blames Russia’s invasion on the US.
Tell that to Muslim voters, who are split between Harris and Stein, and that can potentially swing Michigan and Pennsylvania.
That’s the challenge the DNC has, isn’t it? I wouldn’t relish that job since I think Harris’ position won’t change, the DNC being the institution it is.
I think if I had do, I’d argue that while the DNC is 100% wrong on Palestine, Trump is stronger in his support of Israel, he’s even less sympathetic to the Palestinians AND he will aim to make life in America harder for Muslims just as he tried in his first term.
It’s a pragmatic choice, not an enthusiastic one, and it’s hard to drive voters to the polls on pragmatism alone.
The thing is, support for Israel isn’t moral for the DNC or GOP, it’s economic. The US relies on Israel to serve as a land-based aircraft carrier equivalent, it’s the military foothold by which the US maintains Imperialist control and supports the Petro-Dollar.
The issue for Muslim voters is that they do not wish to support genocide, and believe both parties to be unwavering in their support.
It requires little brain capacity to not support Genocide. Try asking Harris to do that.
I would love to. I think Harris’ position is abhorrent. But I think Trump is a larger threat to peace in Palestine and Jill Stein will not win. If we take those thoughts one step further, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to avoid Harris.
Do you think a Trump presidency will be better or worse for the Palestinians than a Harris administration?
Do you think a Trump presidency will be better or worse for the Palestinians than a Harris administration?
Realistically, neither. The driving factor of the genocide is weapon shipments to Israel, both parties have promised unwavering support to Israel.
So it would not help, instead it would hurt every single LGBTQ+ person, woman and non white person in the US. I guess you don’t care about them
Where, exactly, did I say Trump would help LGBTQIA+ people, Women, and EM/POC?
My point is that Liberals need to drop the idea that Trump would be materially worse than Harris on Gaza, because both Harris and Trump have fully backed Israel via weapon shipments, and therefore Muslim-Americans being unable to back Muslim genocide will likely cost Harris Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I think you’re right about both the weapons being the primary factor and that neither party will stop shipping them, though I also think Harris would put more pressure on Israel to end the atrocities and push for ceasefire. It’s admittedly not nearly enough, but American politics never is.
though I also think Harris would put more pressure on Israel to end the atrocities and push for ceasefire.
What does this materially look like? Harris has taken a firmly anti-Hamas stance, and promised to not cease arming Israel. Even if she wanted to get a ceasefire, if she continues to arm Israel, Israel will continue their settler-colonial genocide, and won’t stop until Gaza is flattened entirely.
Rather than placing undue hopes on the DNC being better than the GOP with respect to genocide, it’s important to highlight that continuing genocide materially hurts the DNC’s reelection chances due to swing state potential.
Focusing on the materially changes a Harris or Trump administration would have on Palestinians is a great point.
I don’t know what material difference Harris would make, and vibes alone aren’t a good way make those kinds of decisions.
I do believe a Trump presidency would be worse for Muslims in America and I think that’s a valuable metric to consider, but, fuck, even if I think Harris is the pragmatic choice, I couldn’t wholly condem someone for being less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who will continue the genocide of their friends and family.
I’ve also become fairly pessimistic about progress in the US, but I think it’s incredibly important to buck against the rise of the right-wing authoritarianism in the US and unfortunately that means supporting the DNC this year.
Focusing on the materially changes a Harris or Trump administration would have on Palestinians is a great point.
I don’t know what material difference Harris would make, and vibes alone aren’t a good way make those kinds of decisions.
Yep. People often get lost in the idea that because the GOP is so bad, the DNC must be better, but in certain topics comparing side-by-side there is little, if any, material difference, and the support for Israel is one instance that has bipartisan support (among congress).
I do believe a Trump presidency would be worse for Muslims in America and I think that’s a valuable metric to consider, but, fuck, even if I think Harris is the pragmatic choice, I couldn’t wholly condem someone for being less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who will continue the genocide of their friends and family .
That’s the thing, if Muslim Americans are evaluating that it is more important to move away from genocide than coalesce with the DNC and perpetuate it, the onus is on the DNC for not representing their normal base in swing-states.
Removed by mod
If Democrats lose Pennsylvania and Michigan because Muslim voters are largely shifting to the Green Party, the Dems will only have themselves to blame.
This post has had a number of reports. It technically doesn’t break any rules, and it’s also on -74 votes, so I’m not going to remove it.
Lemmy has a weird issue with users being extraordinarily upset with posts they don’t agree with.
Users can’t seem to just downvote them, and move on. They have to use the report button as a super downvote. And pm to the mods to complain about how >:( they are.
To be fair, you are repeatedly quite inflammatory and borderline trolling, which is not the culture of this community at all, so I can understand why there is such a reaction. So, although like I said, this doesn’t technically break any rules, it’s clear that not many people like it.
My posts mirror many popular posts of other users. The only difference is that many users seem to react very differently to a post depending whom it portrays positively or negatively. There posts are not considered “trolling” by other users:
Example 1 by me:
Example 2 by me:
Example 3:
Poorly aged example 4:
