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.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Liberals downvoting this would rather plug their ears and cover their eyes instead of confronting their issues and calling on Kamala to sanction Israel.

    • aalvare2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Why would anyone with principles vote for a genocidal cop? Why would anyone with principles vote for the perpetuation of NATO? Why would anyone with principles vote for Banderite neo-nazis attempting to complete the NATO encirclement of a nation that hasn’t been communist for nearly fifty years?

        I will push another candidate, til either my lungs naturally give out, or one of your peckerwood pigs puts a .45ACP in one of them.

      • ChuzaUzarNaim @lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can call on her to sanction Israel as president

        I mean, you could certainly try. It wouldn’t work at all, but you could definitely try.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Jill Stein’s only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump

        Can you explain why?

        • Dr. Bluefall@toast.ooo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Stein has been primarily campaigning on “Drop Kamala”, bleeding democratic support away from Harris.

        • verdigris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Please research the electoral college before you discuss US presidential elections online.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sure.

          When I say “practical role”, I’m referring to how Stein affects the results of this election.

          There is a nearly 0% chance that Jill Stein is going to win the election, and a nearly 100% chance the winner will be either the Dem or GOP nominee. Given that she’s left of Kamala, who’s left of Trump, there are far more Stein voters who would’ve otherwise voted for Kamala than Stein voters who otherwise would’ve voted for Trump. So long as one or both of these voter groups are significantly large (which can mean as few as ~81,000 votes in the right states, since that’s the margin of victory Biden had in 2020), Stein would serve as a significant spoiler for Harris.

          Consider the effect that Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign had on the 2000 election.

          • verdigris@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s literally 0. The entire country could vote unanimously for Stein and the electors could (and would) still just pick a winner from the two major parties.

      • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        She’s the VICE president! We can already judge her actions and make pretty accurate judgements on how she will act as president based on what she is currently doing. Which is aiding genocide.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Being the VP by itself doesn’t give her any authority to make decisions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.

          You can criticize her on the basis that she’ll likely continue the same kinds of actions Biden has already taken in the conflict, which has involved support for Israel, but also some sanctions against Israel, ceasfires, and calls for a two-state solution. I’m under the impression that if Biden was truly unconditionally pro-Israel, that the conflict would be over by now in the most violent way.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The fact that she’s at the highest levels of Biden admin is itself an endorsement of the policies of the administration she’s part of. She absolutely can be judged on that bases. On top of that, everything she has said publicly clearly indicates that she’ll all in on the genocide. She even repeated debunked October 7th rape claims at the debate. There is no question of where she stands. It’s the height of intellectual dishonesty to continue pretending otherwise.

            • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              smh just because I was Hitler’s personal attaché doesn’t mean I agree with Hitler’s policies it wasn’t like I had the authority to make those decisions myself while I helped engage in the diplomatic and administrative duties to facilitate them

          • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m under the impression that if Biden was truly unconditionally pro-Israel, that the conflict would be over by now in the most violent way.

            He literally sidestepped around congress twice to shovel guns and bombs to them faster than even the bloodthirsty Zionists in Congress could — who were already themselves bipartisanly moving to do the same.

            He 100% wanted Gazans wiped off the face of the earth before the elections hit. Don’t make yourself such an easy mark for the most despicable racketeers, murderers, and liars that billionaire and arms-dealer money can buy. These democrat politicians, just like their Republican colleagues who work for the same class of people, would disappear both of us and our entire families to one of the countless bipartisan CIA blacksite torture camps around the world before showing real humanity toward the working class and the victims of their imperialism. There is never any reason to defend them.

      • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            She has not promised to “keep sending Israel bombs”. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel

            lol

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Here’s the thing, taking your paraphrased quotes as accurate (and I believe they are) she is not appending any condition on arming Israel. She did not say “If Congress apportions funds, I will arm Israel,” [let alone “If and only if,”] she said “I will continue to arm Israel,” without any conditional, which Biden has demonstrated the President can do at least to some extent through unilateral executive authority in addition to Congress being able to do it. Therefore, the statements are equivalent. I therefore maintain that “lol/lmao” is a valid response to claiming they are different.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              > 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.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

                • aalvare2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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?

          • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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. You NAFOid fucking ghoul.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Don’t worry everyone, just one more damage control vote and things will all be fixed. The democrats pinky swears. /$

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So I see you’re concerned about the mathematical flaws of First past the post voting and the spoiler effect that comes along with it.

      Did you know that alternative electoral systems exist? Ones where there isn’t a spoiler effect even. I feel like most democrats, like yourself, understand these faults quite well. It is after all, the entire subject of your comment.

      So why are you mad about people who want to vote outside the two party system? Shouldn’t your anger be better directed at the two legacy poltical parties that protect this flawed voting system?

      We all understand that republicans like First Past The Post voting. They are moving to protect FPTP voting in states they control. However, democrats say they support democracy. So can you tell me why they continue to use FPTP voting in the majority of states they control?

      It’s not like this is a new issue. Its not like the democratic party just found out about the spoiler effect that comes with First Past The Post voting. Democrats have been quick to point out the flaws of our voting system longer then I’ve been alive.

      Again, if the democrats are so informed of the flaws of the voting system, why does it persist in the vast majority of blue states? Who is preventing this reform? It’s not the republicans… they aren’t in power in these states. In a two party system, that would leave only one political party responsible for this spoiler effect.

      The democrats.

      They have sat on their hands for countless decades, understanding the problem yet doing nothing to resolve the issue.

      So you see, you should be mad at the democratic party for putting their party over the needs of the people. Not the people who want to vote a certain way.

      It’s unreasonable to blame those unrepresented in government for what is. This is what we voted for… again… and again… and again. Over and over. This is the result.

      • Kacarott@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You can be mad at both. Those in power should be changing the system to make it better and more fair, but they are not. That deserves anger. But while we are stuck with the existing system, and while the results of the system have serious consequences, then refusing to participate (and voting 3rd party in such a system is refusing to participate) means allowing the serious consequences to occur, and therefore also deserves anger.

        It’s almost exactly the classic trolley problem. Voting democrat means pulling the lever: you cause some harm, but far less harm than if the trolley had not been diverted. Voting 3rd party is the equivalent to not pulling the lever, allowing much greater harm while feeling morally “clean” for not having caused it yourself.

    • antmzo220@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yep, the Democratic party never learns that it can’t just shame voters into compliance while offering them nothing.

      • Philo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I didn’t mention party. Either a small mind or a deranged supporter of the orange orangutan would jump to that conclusion. Would you like you accuse me of eating pets also?

        • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          If you won’t get right, if you won’t disavow genocide, if you won’t disavow settler-colonial mentality, if you won’t disavow white supremacy, if you won’t disavow burning our planet to a cinder for your treats; then you deserve everything that happens next.

        • antmzo220@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          They’re the ones doing that, they’re in charge right now and conducting a genocide in Gaza while fear mongering about immigrants.

          • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re saying the Democrats, who are welcoming immigrants into sanctuary cities and fighting to protect the rights of legal immigration, are somehow also responsible for fear-mongering about immigrants? That’s an interesting take. What do you call it when Republicans are threatening to deport all legal and naturalized immigrants without any concern for the number of generational US citizens they will also deport because they had the wrong skin color?

              • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well no, the matter at hand is immigrants in the US and how Trump has stated his intent to deport anyone who doesn’t look white. Yes the main post is about Palestine but this thread is about local immigration and how Trump plans to bring the terror back home.

            • antmzo220@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You’re saying the Democrats, who are welcoming immigrants into sanctuary cities and fighting to protect the rights of legal immigration, are somehow also responsible for fear-mongering about immigrants?

              I’m saying the Democrats who have accepted and now push the 2016 right wing framing on immigration and the border as a national security threat are fear mongering about immigrants yes. Her official platform literally has

              Vice President Harris and Governor Walz believe in tough, smart solutions to secure the border, keep communities safe, and reform our broken immigration system. As Attorney General of California, Vice President Harris went after international drug gangs, human traffickers and cartels that smuggled guns, drugs, and human beings across the U.S.-Mexico border. As Vice President, she supported the bipartisan border [far-right] security bill, the strongest reform in decades. The legislation would have deployed more detection technology to intercept fentanyl and other drugs and added 1,500 border security agents to protect our border. After Donald Trump killed the border deal for his political gain, she and President Biden took action on their own — and now border crossings are at the lowest level in 4 years [why is this good if people crossing the border aren’t bad], their administration is seizing record amounts of fentanyl, and secured funding for the most significant increase in border agents in ten years. As President, she will bring back the bipartisan [far-right]border security bill and sign it into law. At the same time, she knows that our immigration system is broken and needs comprehensive reform that includes strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship.

              That’s an interesting take. What do you call it when Republicans…

              Whataboutism. “The Republican party are evil so it’s alright that the Democratic party is evil too!”.

              Edit: Also, I call them the thought leaders for the future of the Democratic party as they shift further and further right on these issues in the name of "compromise " and “reaching across the aisle”

              • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                So creating stronger border security to stop drug trafficking is a bad thing? There are still ways for people to cross legally, and what you quoted acknowledges the need to fix immigration policy for allowing citizenship. Whataboutism is when you are comparing two identical issues. What you are doing is ignoring the extreme approach of one party and trying to make it sound like the other party is doing the same thing… In the US, Trump wants to deport or straight up kill immigrants, Harris is acknowledging that we need to stop the drug traffic while helping supporting immigration. In Palestine … yeah Biden is sending bombs and he’s an ass for that but Harris has at least stated that things need to change. Meanwhile Trump’s only statement on the matter is that they need to bomb the Gaza strip and make the problem go away. Do you really thing allowing Trump to get into office will help anyone except rich white people? Stein might have a different approach but under our current voting system there is no possible way she will get elected, so your only honest choice in the matter is voting for someone who has a stated policy of death, or someone who has at least admitted that we can do better.

              • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                The one where Democrats made deep concessions to Republican demands? The one where Republicans set most of the tone in the bill and then backed out because daddy Trump wanted immigration to still be an issue for the election?

              • voracitude@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I take it you didn’t notice what happened after Republicans killed that bill?

                But because I don’t entirely disagree with you, I’ll give you a better one: why is the Biden administration trying to remove protections from gray wolf populations, which were first removed by Trump? https://apnews.com/article/gray-wolves-protections-biden-trump-81084b1bba499d444950f8294880c524

                This is widely perceived as a bad idea. Also Gaza, but that’s getting plenty of press anyway and sounds a little one-note at this point. More people need to know about the wolves.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I take it you didn’t notice what happened after Republicans killed that bill?

                  … not specifically? I noticed Harris promised to bring that fascist shit back in 2025 and sign it, and I noticed that Republicans are now saying that Haitian migrants are eating our pets. No one is looking very good right now on the immigration issue.

                  America is fucked.

  • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    that’s what happens when you tell voters to fuck off when they suggest ways in which you can win their vote. hope it was worth it!

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You need to shame muslims more for not supporting the people bombing them. That seems to be working out well for you below.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Bold of you to assume it hasn’t been here with its feet up on the ottoman for the last… How long has Amerika been extrajudicially murdering its subjects-of-empire in the streets, or even in their own homes and beds? How long has Amerika been profiting off carceral slaves? How long has Amerika been aiding and abetting fascist, often-times genocidal settler-colonism overseas?

      Shut the fuck up, Kyle. That you’d even pithily fix your face like this tells me you haven’t been paying attention AT ALL until it started to inconvenience YOU SPECIFICALLY. Just shut the fuck up.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The Muslim-Americans that refuse to vote for a genocidal regime specifically targetting Muslims is somehow fascist, and supporting Trump?

          • BlucifersVeinyAnus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • BlucifersVeinyAnus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                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

                • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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

          • Philo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Back in 2016 I worked with a bunch of Syrian and Lebanese people who ALL voted for your savior Trump because of his “favorable” policies (that means anti-Israel incase you don’t understand), their hero worship quickly turned to hatred as members of their church and families got detained and deported for no reason except having brown skin and unpronounceable names.

          • BlucifersVeinyAnus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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

            • Don Escobar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

      • Philo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Boy are you dumb, where did he mention voting? You shame your parents and every teacher you ever had.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You’re blaming people for being strongly anti-genocide. That’s basically absurd at face value. If you wanna argue against being a single issue voter, that’s a conversation to have. However, “I oppose genocide.” is kinda the single best single issue to rely on, if someone is inclined to be one.

      All the while, Harris knows the risks. Don’t blame voters for Harris’s conscious choice. If you alienate your base, you deserve to lose your base. Deal with it… I think she still has the votes, but that is the risk for every candidate, and it always will be.

      • verdigris@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, we’re pointing out that electing Trump is a really weird way to be anti-genocide.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean that’s what happens when Harris is the vice president of the administration currently carrying out genocide in Gaza. Harris also repeated misinformation about Hamas members/ Palestinian men sexually assaulting Israelis during October 7 during the last presidential debate. How are Muslim voters supposed to trust someone like that? Someone that repeats racist and Islamophobic liee about them and their Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza. Someone actively part of a genocidal administration. Of course Muslims do not want to vote for Harris, and the reasons are very obvious.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Sadly, the democrat party keeps shredding PSL off state ballots, otherwise I’d be voting La Riva. Now I’m weighing whether it’s even worth it to go to the ballot spot, or if I’d get more done just working on my coursework that day.

      • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m writing PSL in regardless, even if they can’t win the state fight against their lawyers. Fuck the “Democrat party” thinking they can bully me into voting for their genocidal asses by sending out dark-money superPAC lawyer squads to directly kill democracy. They’re scared. It just shows how much of a paper tiger they are. They should be forced to change their name, this ain’t even bourgeois ‘democracy’ this is bullshit.

        Everyone should vote third party (ideally PSL, and join them, but Greens in a strong state for it could prove savvy as well) and force a political reorientation if the democrat wing ever want power again. Since the democrats are proven incapable of doing anything but flying to the right (in some cases even further than Republicans, like on immigration), stifling/brow-beating dissenters and sending militarized pigs to crush protestors; workers have been and will continue jumping ship from their genocidal-ass Cheney-Reagan-ass party. And if we throw enough numbers and support behind third parties and especially socialists like the PSL, and reliably rob them of the margins they rely on to keep this charade of death going, they will be forced from ground-up to abandon their duopoly and reorient if they don’t want their liberal democracy to collapse and a whole lot more people to be radicalized into revolutionary politics. And even if they do bring about this reorientation, they’ll have to reorient and reconstitute in a chaotic political retreat from a rising left (which in of itself can only help the victims of imperialism) because they’ve grown so complacent they forgot how to play politics.

        With visibly boosting third party numbers alongside other on-the-ground-work the PSL does continuing to pick up disillusioned workers from their base and the huge 35-50% section that doesn’t even vote because of how disaffected working people are by this ‘fascist-and-vampire’ show, the ruling class is going to have to realize they need float one of these kinds of concessionary reformist “labor” parties to try to capture all the working class people (who never held illusions about the Republicans either) being funneled to true left-wing and revolutionary parties. And that would sunder the democrats in two, with half joining the republicans (that they’ve all-but-done-already), and half flooding into that reformist labor party which, with sufficient agitation, would push the reformists’ own “left wing” into revolutionary disaffection due to it becoming “democrat-ized” by the same people they were trying to get away from. A sufficiently-supported PSL being in the midst of this would only benefit the socialist movement.

        And that’s the best option for the imperialist ruling class to try to stay ahead of the rising independent left parties like the PSL, is breaking apart their own duopoly-of-exploiters under pressure of us throwing our weight behind rupturing these already bursting-at-the-seams contradictions. It isn’t about “winning” like the liberals try to hand-wring about — bourgeois democracy is a farce and always has been. It’s about breaking their entrenched structures apart with a hammer and scattering its pieces with a sickle and make them show they still know how to play politics. And we can all tell they don’t. They have been showing us every day how inept and scared they are.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      On the contrary if they withold their votes Liberals will have to start appealing to them to win them back.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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?

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

                • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        Muslim and/or Arab men also had to hear this nonsense from Harris during the presidential debate when Harris repeated misinformation about October 7, where she said that Hamas and Palestinians sexually assaulted Israelis. How can she expect them to vote for her after that?

        • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Muslim and/or Arab men also had to hear this nonsense from Harris during the presidential debate when Harris repeated misinformation about October 7

          ou and wisdom walk hand in hand from how you picked up what I put down there, this is the one

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Your fear is correct, I’ve seen liberal Nazis salivating about it on reddit. They really hate Muslims.

      Nothing to be done about that though. They were going yo turn on Muslims anyway. There can never be safety in collaborating with Nazis

    • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Green party platform is quite good this year yes. She’s been kindof a crank in the past going along with some anti-vaxxers on some shit but I have been informed she changed on that recently.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Jill Stein is cool. A lot of liberals are mad at her because she is snooping votes from the Democratic party by offering people things they actually want to vote for. Especially a weapons ban on Israel.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not particularly. She has basically no real experience in political office, despite running for several offices. Some of her policy positions sound fine, but without any way to actually implement those policies, they’re just empty words. Plus there’s some shady implications between her and Russia, and historically the Green party is funded by Republicans because they’re an effective spoiler.

      So she sounds cool on the surface, but without more progressives in Congress her attractive policies aren’t remotely actionable. If you want a useful progressive candidate, vote for progressive in local and state elections every chance you have. This presidential election is not an effective time to vote third party.

        • verdigris@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          What are you talking about? He was talking about local elections, and even if he wasn’t there are a non-zero amount of Congress members who fit those criteria.

  • Statick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.