167

Top Muslim-voter organization endorses Harris as Middle East conflict escalates (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

“This endorsement is not agreement with Vice President Harris on all issues, but rather, an honest guidance to our voters regarding the difficult choice they confront at the ballot box,” said Wa’el Alzayat, CEO of Emgage Action, in a statement. “While we do not agree with all of Harris’ policies, particularly on the war on Gaza, we are approaching this election with both pragmatism and conviction.”

Kamala is the only option forward, that doesn't mean she's immune from criticism and we shouldn't demand more from her.

She's not Biden, there's still a good chance she listens to voters.

And we're sure as shit not republicans, be wary of anyone that tells you just because trump exists, it means we can't criticize anyone with a D by their name. That's literally the attitude that got republicans trump in the first place, being willing to accept anything when the alternative was Hillary.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 3 months ago

A corollary to this is that if Harris doesn't listen after 2024, we as voters might be better positioned to push for better policies from Dems with someone new for 2028 or even 2032.

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Trump obviously doesn’t want any brown people in this country. Building a wall, Muslim ban. Does that go for the 15% of Indians that practice Islam? Watch out Hindu’s, you’re next. I don’t understand how he is even considered an option.

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -20 points 3 months ago

Building a wall

...

Vice President Kamala Harris likes to portray herself as tough on the border and immigration.

Recent TV ads highlight her time as a “border state prosecutor” who aggressively targeted criminal cartels and drug smugglers, as well as her support for “the toughest border security bill in decades.”

That bill, which failed in the Senate in February and again in May, included $650 million for new border wall construction. Images of the border wall built during the Trump administration are featured in the Harris ads, yet Harris repeatedly criticized the wall over the years, describing it as an affront to both hers and America’s values.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/kfile-harris-border-wall-asylum-contradicts-progressive-immigration-positions/index.html

Muslim ban

I know Biden wants to codify what Trump used for his ban, but I don't think Kamala has disclosed her stance on if a president should have the power to unilaterally close the border for all refugees or just a subset.

But that's why some people can't pick, because the Democratic party has become significantly more "conservative" since 2012.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -9 points 3 months ago

So I said the party has become more "conservative" since 2012...

And you quoted something from 2010 and some stuff about the 90s?

Then another link from 2019 before Biden and Kamala?

Like, it's 2024...

The party has become more "conservative" from 2012.

If we started the clock in the 90s when Clinton was in office, then it would be different. If we started the clock in 2020 after Biden moved the party to the right. It would be different.

I picked 2012 to highlight any gains made under Obama have been erased.

I was implying that is the reason why we still can't out perform Obama's 08 and even 12 results.

Does that make sense now?

[-] match@pawb.social 3 points 3 months ago

i think their relevant point, that in 1996 Clinton set the current anti-immigration policy that is the standard today, is lost in a big wall of text

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 3 months ago

Yep, came here to say exactly this!

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 3 months ago

Hard disagree. 2008 was before the GOP took control of statewide redistricting to gerrymander and maintain power in a bunch of states and cement an advantage that they still have (which took place in 2010). 2012 was just two years into the effort, but the weaker result there is already showing off the results.

The reason for the rightward shift? It's because of that.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 3 months ago

Doesn't make much sense. Harris did X while the other guy would quadruple that (or worse than quadruple), so the other guy is the better option?

Like, you have a legitimate argument why Harris isn't as good as, say, Sanders or AOC, but why would this give support to someone even worse on the subject?

[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

I want to minimize Palestinian suffering as much as possible. There is clearly a worse option and no alternative to Trump and Harris. There's only one way to reduce harm. I hate that I have to keep doing this lesser of all evil shit but that's what we're living with right now.

[-] Beacon@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago

~~I think you missed the word "don't"~~

Me fail english. I misread what OP was saying. Sorry, my bad

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I thought that at first too. Then I realized that it wasn't a rhetorical device and that they literally meant that they want to reduce Palestinian suffering.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

I believe they meant they wanted to see actions that minimized Palestinian suffering, not “I want to speak as if I’m minimizing the importance of Palestinian suffering”

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Actually, rereading the post, I think they had it correct. The "don't" would in fact be the opposite of what they said, and that doesn't make sense with the rest of the context.

[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

All good.

[-] i_ben_fine@lemmy.one 2 points 3 months ago

I hate that I have to keep doing this ...

A lot of people have reached that point and checked out. Kamala could do a lot of things to get people back on board though.

[-] oakey66@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

But it doesn't change the fact that I am voting for the outcome I want that is reasonably available to me based on the options.

I think it's disingenuous for the green party to say that a vote for them is a vote to stop the genocide. There is literally no scenario where the genocide stops if Jill Stein gets 4% of the vote. All it does is increase the chances of another trump presidency. And while I would rather have green party politics, I am under no illusion that they have the faintest chance of actually getting them in place.

I also understand some Palestinians voting down-ballot and ignoring the Presidential race after having lost friends and family to the foreign policy of both candidates. I couldn't imagine the pain of voting for your (or your family's) oppressors or their enablers.

[-] i_ben_fine@lemmy.one -2 points 3 months ago

I understand your position. I'm going to keep withholding my vote in the hope there are enough of us to make Kamala earn it back with policy.

[-] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 months ago

Waiting for all the chuds who scolded me for “not listening to Muslim voters” when I argued exactly this to form an orderly queue and apologize one by one.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 16 points 3 months ago

But, but, but, Jill Stein will stop selling weapons! 🤪

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

I finally figured out how to shut up/shut them down.

I simply point out that as an educated man, Ho Chi Minh would have known all about America's long history of expansionism, racism, and imperialism. That didn't do anything to stop him from working with the American OSS when it was time to fight the Japanese.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

God, I wish we backed Ho Chi Minh instead of the fucking French.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Think of it this way. Dick Cheney is an oil man who has been involved in politics all his life. As far as I have been able to find, he doesn't speak any Arabic. The same thing was going on in 1945; "educated" leaders who had no idea what the people they were dealing with were actually thinking.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Don't worry, they'll assure you that American Muslims are just 'white' and 'settler-brained'.

[-] mlg@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Emgage has been criticized by Muslim organizations, including the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the umbrella organization for Muslim advocacy groups in the US for its ties to groups involved in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian activity and which attack elected Muslim lawmakers like Ilhan Omar. After these went unaddressed, the Council severed ties with Emgage.[11][12] Emgage denied the accusations, which it described as a product of "ideological cancel culture".[13]

A PAC is still a PAC no matter what you name it lol. Ain't no way Dearborn is going to gladly accept getting screwed if Harris refuses to change her stance.

They didn't vote for Clinton and she wasn't even that bad compared to literal genocide.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

wow, this implies that there are Muslim voter organizations undecided or endorsing dumps.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 3 months ago

Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Associated Press:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-emgage-muslims-endorsement-gaza-israel-trump-campaign-biden-ad30de2fc83a7fd4f65190c0f3d1a6da

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024

167 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19248 readers

2674 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News