279
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
279 points (87.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3806 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
This thread indicates not.
Centrist Democrats have never considered that a party is obligated to represent people whose votes it needs.
I think its more that they kinda can't win. Trapped in the inertia of past governments propping up Israel...backing out of support fully is never going to happen. Best they can do is try to lean on Israel to ceasefire. Then of course there's the consideration for Jewish voters who support Israel, which iirc is a larger voting bloc than American Muslims.
Of course it is also amusing that Muslims are seemingly okay with getting Trump in, the guy who intentionally inflamed tensions in the Middle East.
Then of course there's also the danger of turning Dems against Muslims because of the perceived betrayal...which honestly I'd care a lot less about what happens to Muslims in America if they get Trump in.
Essentially, this is sorta like trying to create a hostage situation with a pistol at your own head.
I'd wager the majority of American Jews would actually approve of at least conditioning aid to Israel so they stop bombing civilian targets. And the ones that are pro-genocide, are probably already voting for Republicans.
You're probably not wrong. It's an impossibly difficult problem to determine exactly what every voter wants.
Then of course we have to wonder all the non-public things that are keeping the US tied to Israel...would make it a lot easier to understand why things are happening as they are.
For one, the occupation is an amazing source of tools and tactics that end up being used by cops in the US to ~~occupy~~ police certain neighbourhoods.
It's a lot easier to not give a shit and just scream insults at anyone who's had enough.
Like you're doing in this entire thread? LMAO
Who have I insulted?
Dishonest discussion is insulting lol
All you've done is throw out supposed "gotcha" statements and added nothing to conversation. It makes me embarassed to fundamentally agree with you on things.
It's literally dipshits like you that undermine the cause of the left: head to far up your own ass to accept anything less than everything being what you want. Learn the reality of the situation before crying about how the dems did something that isn't what you think is best and turn your energy to actually achievable results
The party should adapt to get the votes of people it needs to win.
That's not expecting everything to be like I want. That's wanting the party to do what is necessary to win so we don't get stuck with Trump again.
Dismissing them is fine if you think you don't need them. Hurling abuse at them is great if you think you can win without their votes. But if you do that, don't turn around and blame people to whom you were hostile and whose votes you didn't attempt to get.
Democrats would never act that way while trying to court Republican votes that they'll never get, but they're perfectly comfortable doing so to anyone to the left of party leadership -- votes they can get but are too proud to try getting.
Ah, finally, an actual answer
I'm explicitly talking about this scenario: American Muslims are overplaying their hand to the detriment of the rest of the bloc. What they want is utterly unattainable in such a short term, and the only counter they are attempting is threatening to vote for Trump as though it is some sort of solution. Sure, demanding a ceasefire and stopping Islamaphobia at home is a great long-term goal, but it is ludicrous to see their demands as valid when they are essentially saying "if you don't stop Islamaphobia I'm gonna be the Islamaphobes in power."
As for hurling abuse at them, I don't think any Democrat official has done anything of the sort, whereas the party they are turning to does constantly.
And when it comes to courting Republicans...they have to play nice or risk the government ceasing to function. At the same time, given current trends the Democratic party will shift more to the left because more and more young people are going to force their hand within the next decade or so as the Boomers are (thankfully) culled.
People do illogical things sometimes, yes. How do we go about getting them back?
I wish I had your optimism regarding the future of the Democratic Party.
We get them back by reminding them of exactly what has been done for them and the realities of the alternative, as well as opening a dialog on what reasonable concessions can be made (if any). If that doesn't work, then clearly, there was no way of turning them, and they should be cut loose.
As for optimism, it's really more of simply extrapolating trends in the culture of younger generations and the realities of more workers than at least the last 40 years realizing they are being screwed and striking. Clearly, something is changing as people realize the system is a scam
Right. Tell them to be grateful for genocide and scream that they want trump.
That would be something to try. The party won't. They'll skip straight to this:
And then act like they tried everything they could and blame them for any losses.
No, by reminding them that "hey we are the party that stops you from actively being deported and barred from entering the country."
That's a damn convincing argument if there ever was one, and honestly if they aren't convinced it won't be a problem anymore since they won't be around next election cycle anyway after another round of republican rule...
When Democrats had control of both houses and the presidency, what legislation did they introduce to stop Muslims from being deported and barred from entry into the country? What did they put into place to keep the next bigoted turd from implementing a Muslim ban?
Oh, and they're funding a genocide?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NO_BAN_Act
They did this...it passed in the house and has been stuck in committees for ages
As for funding genocide...yeah the Democratic party has a problem in that most voters lean towards Palestine and the party doesn't, but its also a relatively "new" issue in the eyes of the public (most people didn't think about Israel or Palestine before this for any amount of time), so who knows? Maybe things shift as things go on
Looks like it was introduced by Democrats during the Trump administration and then reintroduced and silently killed during the Biden administration. In fairness, it was in fact introduced. I'll give them credit for that.
Wouldn't be the first time that the party acted contrary to the will of their voters and then demanded support anyway. But genocide is the issue this time. That's an extremely bitter pill to swallow, and it's disturbing to discover how many in your own party love the taste.
Democrats don't shift left.
It all rolls back to the same problem in the end:
The dems don't need to care until the Republicans stop being utter garbage, or enough of the population forces them to reconsider at once. We are. ot there yet so the best course of action is to aid the party that won't take away your rights to vote.
You forgot to add "lol"
Yeah, it doesn't work when the person you're attempting to extract concessions from doesn't care if you pull the trigger. And it's evident that Democrats would prefer Trump to even attempting to represent these people.
See, the problem here is that the Muslims can do whatever they want in this scenario, but the bottom line is that they have to accept the same shit as everyone else.
If I'm being honest, this whole stunt just looks like trying to force the democratic party into doing what they want at the expense of other, more numerous voters.
For example, I have to accept that Biden isn't going to do everything I want like go hard after the wealthy or force through student loan forgiveness. However, him being in power means my LGBT friends and family, as well as any female relatives and friends have protection for their rights and bodily autonomy.
It's not a great choice to have to make because our system sucks, but I have to make that call because Republicans will absolutely make things worse. In the cold, calculating world of politics, if I had to choose between my friends and family having rights or Palestinians not being killed...I'd pick my friends and family 10/10 times. Of course I'd rather have both, but that's the reality of the situation.
Then of course there's the whole question of why those Muslim people are in America (yes, I'm aware of how dangerously close this line of thinking gets to dipshit conservatives bitching about immigrants). Is making their current home demonstrably worse for them really a good idea?
Yeah, voters having free will is a problem for Democrats.
You were already close to the line.
Like are you dense or just being intentionally dishonest? I'm not saying it is a problem the Muslims have free will: I'm saying the problem is that they are free to do what they wish, but their actions will have consequences for them that are likely to not be worth it, so they need to accept tradeoffs like everybody else.
And then you don't bother actually responding to my arguments. Maybe try that next time in order to get meaningful responses.
Accept tradeoffs like everybody else? When was the last time the republican-adjacent wing of the party had to accept any tradeoffs?
When they didn't successfully do all the horrible shit they wanted to do under Trump. When they failed to coup the US Government on Jan. 6. The fact that a nationwide abortion ban isn't in effect and Muslims are allowed to enter the country.
Bitch and cry all you want about "wahhh it's just accepting Fascism more slowly with the Dems." Go look at how the government actually votes on issues and see how much shit is stopped by the Dems, and how much actually positive legislation for people does get passed exclusively because of the Democrats.
I hate having to defend them, but I have to accept the reality that without them my life would be objectively worse.
I didn't say the Republican Party. I said the republican-adjacent portion of the party. To clarify: Centrist Democrats. The Manchin wing of the Democratic Party. The Corporate wing. The wing that always manages to find the no votes to kill progressive anything. The wing that only ever compromises to their right and only ever punches left. That portion of the party.
When was the last time they had to accept any tradeoffs?
I can agree that it is bullshit they get to continue with what they are doing, but in practical terms they too are needed. The seat Manchin controls is solidly Republican, and as we've seen the caliber of person the Republicans are putting forward are completely opposed to even the remotest concession. It sucks, but having someone with a (D) next to their name who has to worry about biting the hand that feeds them is marginally better than someone with an (R). However, given as he is about to be gone, catering to him isn't gonna be a thing much longer, hopefully.
I'm aware of Manchin's position in the Senate and the politics of West Virginia, but that's not what I asked.
When was the last time his wing of the party had to accept any tradeoffs?
You're missing the point: Is it bullshit they get to get away with being Republican-lite? Yes.
Is it something that we can change right this second? No.
It boils down to the same annoying reality of our situation being accepting tradeoffs because there is literally no alternative that is feasibly going to happen.
They don't have to accept tradeoffs "like everyone else"; they have to accept tradeoffs like the favored portion of the party that gets everything it wants out of the party at all times NEVER DOES.
Don't belittle people who are upset about genocide by acting like everyone in the party has to accept shit they don't like from the party. It's simply not true.
I like how they don't like genocide so in protest, they vote for the other party that "likes genocide" (and is actively hostile to minorities, but whatever).
In this case the tradeoff they have to accept is...voting for a party that does the same thing but even more overt.
I'm not belittling anyone, I'm simply stating that facts of the situation - regardless of which party they vote for - they will be effectively choosing to accept genocide, whether their vote is a protest vote or not, because that's how the 2-party system works.
When was the last time centrist Democrats had to accept a tradeoff? Don't pretend I'm talking about anyone else again. Don't try to change the subject again. Stop avoiding the question.
Moderate democrats are the majority in power, so it makes sense they are the most powerful and get what they want the most. In cases like Manchin, they get outsized power due to how tight margins are in the senate. That's how it works in a "coalition" of sorts. If Dems had a comfortable majority, they could force through more things. It's basic logic that a party with multiple different wings has to cater to the ones that are more likely to flip on them. In most cases, the left wing of the Dems will never vote for the Right, so it's a safer bet to de-prioritize them when compared to the right, who may vote right.
If the left wing of the dems had more voters (which is slowly happening by the look of things), they could exercise more power, and if they had a comfortable majority (and more balls), they could ignore people like Manchin.
As per your question, I have no idea, I dont keep tabs on every vote, but I am very confident my assessment of the situation is correct.
You can't provide a single example because none exists. "Everybody" doesn't have to accept tradeoffs. Centrist Democrats don't. You're expecting people to accept genocide based on an argument that has no basis in reality.
Centrist Democrats right now don't need to accept tradeoffs because they are needed atm. As demographics shift, eventually, things will change as they must.
As for accepting genocide...well, if I had to choose between my own safety and someone else's, I know where I'd stand...
"Just accept genocide because the group that runs the party may one day in the nebulous future have to accept tradeoffs"
is not the same as "Everybody has to accept tradeoffs."
You've made your position regarding instant unquestioning support of genocide for its own sake abundantly clear.
I love the big sweeping generalizations you make; it really shows an utter lack of understanding reality. Keep up the purity tests so the left can't ever get anywhere because we are too busy infighting I guess
Keep expecting everyone to be happy with tradeoffs you make on their behalf but never your own.