289
Muslim Americans in swing states launch anti-Biden campaign
(www.axios.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2065 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The guy running against Biden has far worse policies with regard to Muslims. If that guy wins it "proves" America wants the worse policies, potentially causing Democrats to switch to those policies to try to win.
Luckily, this is a publicity stunt that I don't foresee changing any actual votes.
If Biden's stance on Israel is driving away voters, that's just normal. This is one of those important polarizing issues, and he can't avoid accountability, for good or bad. The death count and coverage has guaranteed that.
As for "America wants" language, that doesn't mean anything. Different people have different goals.
Who are Zionists actually voting for? If it's not the Democratic party, then why would he continue to be pro-Israel? Whom is he pandering to with that stance?
There are many reasons politicians might be pro war. The military industrial complex is too powerful, among other things.
Sure, it's shorthand, but the idea is that the Democratic Party might nominate a presidential candidate who has harsher views about Muslims and Palestine, if they see those views being the reason they lost, or among the reasons they lost.
They would see that they had the "better" policies and still didn't get the votes from the people who care most passionately about them, so their approach did not work. Maybe they go closer to the protesters view to try to get their votes, or maybe they give up on the protesters as a voting bloc since they couldn't even get their vote when they had the "better" policies. That would entail going further away from the protesters views.
Either could happen, I don't know the polling, but my point is that it isn't just "we will take 4 years of Trump to make our point and make Democrats listen," they may be taking 4 years of Trump and then proving that no one should align their policy views with theirs going forward because it hurts more than it helps.
Rationally, you have a valid point.
But I can totally understand people who can't bring themselves to vote for someone actively supporting a genocide. Something that Trump didn't do during his tenure in office.
Lesser of two evils only works when the distinction is clear to everyone.
Biden needs to separate himself from Israeli genocidal politics, and it seems his cabinet is trying to shift.
So in conclusion, you might consider this a publicity stunt. And maybe it is. But recent elections have shown that you can't ignore your base, you need to fire them up to really turn them out.
So this is definitely a good move.
Trump provided military assistance, approved arms sales, and personally vetoed a bill to end US military assistance to the Saudis in Yemen which is considered a genocide as well.
And his Israel "peace plan" was literally just giving the Israelis everything they wanted so if you're giving him credit for Israel/Palestine actions you're literally just giving him credit for not being the president when this happened. He absolutely would have been worse for Palestinians, he just didn't have the power at the time.
Then they stay home to vote "neither of the above" or in more active form cast ballot voting for "Mickley mouse" aka foiled ballot.
Trump was trying to oppress them personally. Maybe sympathy for those suffering a genocide is more important to them than their own safety, but maybe it shouldn't be.
Also, do you really think Trump wouldn't support Israel killing every last Palestinian they could?
Oh, so just the families of those citizens. Gotcha. I'm sure Trump won't do worse next time.
Also, that isn't all he did. He wanted a national registry of Muslim-Americans, for example.
Please, explain to me how doing that wouldn't be oppressing them.
...and the American base never fails to show its sheer, utter stupidity.
Good thing there's someone else running in the primary that's polling 10 times higher than that guy.
Who would that be?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/2024/national/
I guess she's got double the votes, not 10 times, but it's funny you haven't heard of Marianne Williamson.
I've heard of Williamson. Those charts say she's polling in the single digits and is only ahead of some dude named Phillips that I've never heard of.
Not sure where you're getting your 10x or even 2x numbers.
OP didn't mean some rando that no one's ever heard of. "The guy running against Biden" meant the only other person with any chance of being president in 2025
I don't think those graphs say what you think they do. Unless you haven't noticed that blue line way at the top.
Obviously the incumbent is polling at 80%+, I'm just saying that Phillips is even less likely to challenge Biden than Williamson, so there's really no point in saying he's even worse than Biden.
I find it funny that people trot her out as if she's some solution here. Will you be telling gay men who loathe her for minimizing AIDS to suck it up and vote for her?