Green Party candidate Jill Stein is gaining ground among Muslim-American voters in three critical swing states: Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin, according to a recent poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Stein leads Vice President and Democrat candidate Kamala Harris in these states, with 40 per cent support in Michigan, 35 per cent in Arizona, and 44 per cent in Wisconsin. This surge in popularity appears tied to Stein’s vocal criticism of US support for Israel during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
I worry that, if Harris loses because Muslim voters don’t vote for her, liberals will side with Trump when he does another Muslim ban.
Or something worse this time.
Western supremacy and defense of colonialism is the cornerstone of liberalism, so they will, just like all the liberals did during the US war on Iraq, vietnam, and every other war.
On the contrary if they withold their votes Liberals will have to start appealing to them to win them back.
I’m talking about liberals more broadly, not politicians. The angry mass of liberals might decide to get revenge, even if it isn’t in the Democratic Party’s interests.
Possibly but they’ve already shown to care little about brown people while the Muslims did vote Democrat in 2020. They even refused a Palestinian speaker at the DNC.
In the end when the propaganda machine decides it’s time to go it goes and targets whomever needs to be dehumanized. And most people from both sides will accept the propaganda without question.
Okay now you’re contradicting yourself. It sounds like Democrats don’t have to start appealing to Muslims. They’ll just crank out propaganda and join Republicans in eradicating them. And what are they going to do? Vote Republican?
I’m saying that voting Democrat does not gain them any immunity from being racially profiled by Democrats.
They have already appealed to Democrats and got nothing in return.
But you’re also saying that Democrats will have to appeal to them if they withhold their votes. I don’t think they do. Democrats could just write them off like they already do other groups.
Democrats only have so much leeway before they have to crawl back and appeal to voters. Especially since the elections are so close and minority groups hold significant voting power.
Biden got replaced because Democrats realized he was going to lose to Trump. Not because the establishment didn’t want to run him.
liberals will side with Trump when he does another Muslim ban.
Based on how quickly liberals threw DREAMers under the bus when it started being necessary to outflank Republicans to their right on immigration? This is an inevitability. They were going to do this even if they won, based on the way Hillary Clinton won by three million but Black men still had to hear the most about it from the daughters of Emmett Till’s false-accuser.
EDIT: You can see exactly what I’m talking about right here being directly weaponized against actually-principled socialists and communists in this very fucking thread. Stay classy, sh.itsfulla.nazis!
2016 again. Idiots never learn.
Clinton won the popular by three million you willfully-ignorant fuck
It’s ironic to see people in this thread talking about “Democrats closing their eyes and ears”…
In 1995 the Arab-Israeli electorate sat out the election in protest because of a bombing which allowed Netanyahu to win by half a percent. And now he is still in power today causing all of these atrocities.
Trump has had private meetings with Netanyahu telling him to keep it up because it makes Democrats look bad.
You’re playing into Netanyahu and Trump’s hand. Just like all the MAGAt’s crying about the border when it was trump who stopped the border bill.
Genocide is a non-starter. I will not collaborate.
Simply? I dissent.
You’re collaborating by participating in the US economy, far more than voting against Trump.
We’re in such a wonderful position: Kamala does nothing about Israel like she’s paid to do and Palestinians die.
Trump wins and not only does nothing about Palestine, but encourages Bibi to go harder, more Palestinians die annnnd we get to enjoy the beginning of a fascist dictatorship!
Notice how Stein isn’t even mentioned in the above? You can claim it’s about putting pressure on Kamala all you like, but this is the literal election. When she loses because of this “pressure” (that isn’t pressure, it’s literally not voting for her at all) what’s the outcome? It sure as hell has nothing to do with Stein being anywhere.
We’ve been having this argument about the green party for fucking decades and what progress/policies have they “forced” the Democrats to adopt?
I think aside from the obvious genocide, what really fucking pisses me off about Democrats and this topic is that “we” can sooooo easily say “handguns for self defense ok! Shotguns for self defense ok! Rifles for self defense ok (depends on magazine size and rate of fire) bombs? No! Tanks? God no!” But when it comes to Isreal they suddenly completely lose the capacity for nuance… Bombs = self defense? Are you fucking joking?
Don’t worry. With a divided vote trump will take care of everything.
Stien never had any chance but the one she’s intended for. Divide the vote and help the people funding her- republicans.
Edit. I’ll add this here. Just saw this on another post
“No” is a full sentence, political incel.
Liberals downvoting this would rather plug their ears and cover their eyes instead of confronting their issues and calling on Kamala to sanction Israel.
Kamala isn’t president yet. You can call on her to sanction Israel as president, without also pushing another candidate.
Jill Stein’s only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump, and if Trump wins then Palestine is really truly f’d anyway.
It also doesn’t help that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for the disbandment of NATO and the disruption of Ukraine aid. Those are extreme positions that have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, and many of those interested in voting for her are likely not even aware of those stances.
Jill Stein’s only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump
Can you explain why?
Stein has been primarily campaigning on “Drop Kamala”, bleeding democratic support away from Harris.
…Trick and? You cannot seriously expect the principled to support genocidal murderers.
Kamala isn’t president yet. You can call on her to sanction Israel as president, without also pushing another candidate.
She has promised to always keep sending Israel bombs. She can promise to sanction Israel if she wants to regain votes she is shedding by promising to continue genocide.
Jill Stein’s only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump, and if Trump wins then Palestine is really truly f’d anyway.
Jill Stein’s platform is a lot better than the Democrats, votes for her pull the DNC to the left. If Trump wins, he will indeed continue the genocide started under the Democrats, but so would Kamala.
It also doesn’t help that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for the disbandment of NATO and the disruption of Ukraine aid. Those are extreme positions that have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, and many of those interested in voting for her are likely not even aware of those stances.
Then tell people what she stands for. For what it’s worth, disbanding NATO is the single greatest thing any American President could do for the Global South, taking a firm stand against Imperialism.
She has promised to always keep sending Israel bombs. She can promise to sanction Israel if she wants to regain votes she is shedding by promising to continue genocide.
She has not promised to “keep sending Israel bombs”. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel, but a) she would have to support Israel so far as Congress continues to apportion aid to Israel, and b) she has also repeatedly stated that she wants a 2-state solution and to enact a ceasefire.
Jill Stein’s platform is a lot better than the Democrats, votes for her pull the DNC to the left.
I disagree with this. You’d think that voting for Jill Stein would pressure the DNC to go further left, but if Trump wins then it sends the message that the progressive left can’t be trusted to vote for them, so they’ll go back to appealing to moderates. So the gains created by giving Sanders/AOC-types more leverage in the party and nominating Tim Walz for VP (the most progressive pick out of everyone considered) would be lost.
If Trump wins, he will indeed continue the genocide started under the Democrats, but so would Kamala.
I believe the assault on Palestine would be accelerated under Trump. You can call it lip service if you want, but at least Kamala has repeatedly called for a 2-state solution, meaning she’d continue to do the bare minimum req’d by Congress as far as supporting Israel would be concerned. Trump has never supported a 2-state solution, verbally or otherwise - the guy even moved the Israel embassy into Jerusalem, against the suggestion of virtually all his foreign aid experts. He has more interest in stoking this conflict than not.
For what it’s worth, disbanding NATO is the single greatest thing any American President could do for the Global South, taking a firm stand against Imperialism.
I disagree very, very strongly. I don’t see how this “takes a firm stance against imperialism” because Russia is 100% the aggressor of that conflict. They had no legitimate reason to cross into Ukraine’s border and open fire, other than to further imperialistic ambition. The whole point of NATO is to discourage that ambition.
She has not promised to “keep sending Israel bombs”. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel
Lmao
I disagree with this. You’d think that voting for Jill Stein would pressure the DNC to go further left, but if Trump wins then it sends the message that the progressive left can’t be trusted to vote for them, so they’ll go back to appealing to moderates. So the gains created by giving Sanders/AOC-types more leverage in the party and nominating Tim Walz for VP (the most progressive pick out of everyone considered) would be lost.
Historically this isn’t the case. The DNC only throws the left a bone if they need to.
I disagree very, very strongly. I don’t see how this “takes a firm stance against imperialism” because Russia is 100% the aggressor of that conflict. They had no legitimate reason to cross into Ukraine’s border and open fire, other than to further imperialistic ambition. The whole point of NATO is to discourage that ambition.
We aren’t talking about Russia and Ukraine, though NATO did provoke that. NATO itself is an offensive alliance that has plundered the Global South, period, without needing to reference Russia nor Ukraine. Ask anyone in the Global South what their opinion of NATO is.
> Lmao
I’m sorry, but “saying that she’d continue to arm Israel”, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to “promising to give Israel bombs”. The keyword “promise”, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesn’t have to. I’ll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that it’s literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.
> Historically this isn’t the case. The DNC only throws the left a bone if they need to.
Do you have any sources for this?
> We aren’t talking about Russia and Ukraine, though NATO did provoke that. NATO itself is an offensive alliance that has plundered the Global South, period, without needing to reference Russia nor Ukraine. Ask anyone in the Global South what their opinion of NATO is.
This segment of the discussion IS about Russia and Ukraine, because it’s what I raised at the end of my first post.
In any case, do you have any sources for this? Because from my perspective, I don’t see how NATO provoked that conflict. It was Russia, not a NATO-membered country nor Ukraine, that crossed the Ukrainian border and opened fire on Ukrainian territory that started the war.
I’m sorry, but “saying that she’d continue to arm Israel”, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to “promising to give Israel bombs”. The keyword “promise”, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesn’t have to. I’ll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that it’s literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.
She has promised to always support Israel and aid it in its defense. It’s cut and dry, she will posture for a ceasefire while supporting genocide.
Do you have any sources for this?
Sure. During FDR’s campaign, coming off of the Great Depression, the Ruling Class feared a US October Revolution like what happened in the USSR, so the US became a Social Democracy for a time. Leftward movement comes from fear from the Ruling Class.
This segment of the discussion IS about Russia and Ukraine, because it’s what I raised at the end of my first post.
My point was not. My point was that pulling out of NATO is the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do. You’re shifting it back to Russia.
In any case, do you have any sources for this? Because from my perspective, I don’t see how NATO provoked that conflict. It was Russia, not a NATO-membered country nor Ukraine, that crossed the Ukrainian border and opened fire on Ukrainian territory that started the war.
Stoltenberg admitted it. “The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”
In other words, NATO expansionism and encirclement of Russia despite Russia warning against it caused it. NATO was formed by Anticommunists against the USSR, and retained its anti-Russia purpose even after the dissolution of the USSR. Had NATO not expanded against Russia’s wishes, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
She has promised to always support Israel and aid it in its defense. It’s cut and dry, she will posture for a ceasefire while supporting genocide.
Paying lip-service to the support of Israel’s defense is not equivalent to personally supporting genocide. You could argue that it’s practically the same thing if she ultimately continues to arm Israel and Israel continues to attack Gaza, but I don’t think the blame should be placed on her, it should be placed principally on Israel, next on a Congress that apportions funds for Israel.
During FDR’s campaign, coming off of the Great Depression, the Ruling Class feared a US October Revolution like what happened in the USSR, so the US became a Social Democracy for a time. Leftward movement comes from fear from the Ruling Class.
My original claim was that if progressives split the vote, and the GOP wins as a result, that’ll shift the party right.
This isn’t a counter-example to that, IMO it’s an example that the worse the economy is for the working class, the harder the working class swings politics left, which I would agree with. That said, the Great Depression was also a much worse economic period.
I think an example in favor of what I’m talking about is the 2000 election. Bush won Florida by less than 1000 votes, but 100k votes were cast for the socialist candidate, most of which would’ve otherwise gone to Gore. The result was Bush not only winning in 2000, but again in 04. And in 08 we get someone who appealed moderates as much as he did to progressives.
My point was not. My point was that pulling out of NATO is the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do. You’re shifting it back to Russia.
I’m not shifting the entire conversation back to Russia, just this portion of it, because that’s where this portion started, and your point about dissolving NATO being an anti-imperalist move contradicts my take that removing the check against Russia is a pro-imperialist move. Also I don’t see how disbanding NATO would be “the single great act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do“, feel free to elaborate.
In other words, NATO expansionism and encirclement of Russia despite Russia warning against it caused it. NATO was formed by Anticommunists against the USSR, and retained its anti-Russia purpose even after the dissolution of the USSR. Had NATO not expanded against Russia’s wishes, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
Russia could have simply…not invaded Ukraine? NATO is just a defensive alliance, it getting bigger doesn’t put Russia in danger unless Russia has imperialistic tendencies.
You could argue that Russia feared that NATO getting bigger meant that the individual countries get bigger, meaning they may choose to attack Russia themselves with larger power. But Russia could use that as an excuse to shore up its own alliances and continue building its own military (both actions taken in case of Russian invasion), not to invade a non-NATO country for no other reason?
She has not promised to “keep sending Israel bombs”. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel
lol
Copied from my other reply:
I’m sorry, but “saying that she’d continue to arm Israel”, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to “promising to give Israel bombs”. The keyword “promise”, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesn’t have to. I’ll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that it’s literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.
Site tagline material.
because Russia is 100% the aggressor of that conflict.
Ah yes, because it was Russia who were the ones who indiscriminately shelled Donetsk and Luhansk. Because it was Russia who violated Minsk II. Because it was Russia who couped Poroshenko to replace him with a shit comedian and a few thousand Banderites. You NAFOid fucking ghoul.
Awesome.
Let’s give fascism a chance.
Yay
Are you vote-shaming Muslim-Americans refusing to vote for someone committing genocide on Palestinians?
Explicitly YES
A vote fire Stein is a vote for Trump. A vote for stein is a vote for fascism.
Yes. I explicitly shame this behavior.
Shame.
Dig?
The Muslim-Americans that refuse to vote for a genocidal regime specifically targetting Muslims is somehow fascist, and supporting Trump?
Unfortunately, yes.
Our system blows. But as it stands, yes, that is correct.
The two party system should change, but until it does, you either vote for the lesser of two evils or you step back enable the greater of two evils.
If you vote for stein you’re worse than most magas because deep down, you know better.
Gotcha, so you’re the liberal that would rather close their eyes and cover their ears than actually try to regain those votes by pushing Kamala to sanction Israel.
I’m no fucken liberal
We should have cut Israel loose 30 years ago
Kamala is as center right as she’s ever been, she’s a fucken cop ffs
You think I wouldn’t rather be voting for somebody even a little left of center, let alone an actual leftist?
That’s not the world as it stands, no matter how much you whinge about making Kamala be mean to isreal
I could piss away my vote because Kamala sucks but what does that get anyone? You want change, dig in. We need to win local first
You think it’s bad for Muslims now? What do you think it looks like if the fucken yahoos running around saying Haitians eat cats win again because a bunch of morons protest voted for stein.
And seriously, Jill fucken stein of all people
You have no principle, no spine, and no solidarity.
I’m no fucken liberal
Voteblues are liberals, sorry
We should have cut Israel loose 30 years ago
Assuming it had to be founded, it should have been destroyed 70-something years ago
You are deranged.
No, he knows he’s a bloody-handed collaborator and misery loves company.
A vote fire Stein is a vote for Trump
Can you explain to us why this is so?
Yeah, pay attention.
It’s a two party system as much as that sucks.
Stein has no shot. None. You’re a fool if you think she can win anything anywhere.
Candidate A from team blue sucks ass.
Candidate B from team red is a million times worse
—
If you’re abstaining to make a point or voting for stein because Kamala sucks, you’re enabling the greater of two evils by not actively voting against it.
—
You want a third party? We have to start at the bottom and when we get a shot at a national presence Jill fucken stein ain’t gonna be there
If you aid and abet a genocide you deserve evil to befall you
I pray there is a hell for you, bleak and unending.
FFS I wish more people would get this. I understand that Kamala’s policy isn’t helping her but I don’t think they’ve done the math that a trump presidency would enable Israel 10 fold, he has made his stance very clear when it comes to Muslims and Israel.
How you sound
