Muslim Americans in swing states launch anti-Biden campaign
axios.com
"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."
That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.
You are viewing a single comment
This thread indicates not.
Centrist Democrats have never considered that a party is obligated to represent people whose votes it needs.
I don’t really understand this. The republican position is clearly pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian. What are they hoping to achieve by destabilizing Biden?
I’m not a Biden fan, but he is clearly less detrimental to their position that the alternative…
You don't understand that people don't want to participate in a system where both choices require them to take active participation in what they see as genocide of their own people?
Or you just don't see how anyone could possibly oppose genocide?
In either case, you certainly didn't show any evidence at all that you have given any consideration whatsoever to the idea that a party is obligated to represent people whose votes it needs.
You've only got three options.
Pick Gun A. Someone shoots 8 people with Gun A.
Pick Gun B. Someone shoots 20 people with Gun B.
Don't pick either gun. Other people decide which gun will be used. Someone shoots either 8 or 20 people with the chosen gun.
If I don't want people to die, what should I pick? Should I pick Gun A because I want to make sure the fewest people die? Or should I not pick at all, so that I can feel good about myself if gun B is chosen and 20 people die?
I'm sympathetic to them, but refusing to participate in the system doesn't mean the system goes away. It just means you pretend you don't have blood on your hands. If you care about keeping the Palestinian death toll as low as possible, you vote for the option that will kill the fewest. That's voting for Biden. Choose not to vote, and the death toll may be higher.
Blood will be on my hands no matter what I pick. I choose to see and accept that blood, if it means even one life is saved that would be doomed otherwise.
I suppose congrats are in order. We have a real life Trolley Problem.
Shit. It actually is.
You just forgot options D:
If enough people don't pull the lever to not kill anyone, nobody will be killed. But then the Democrats get real mad you voted third party.
If you can get enough people to vote third party to outright win the election, then you're wasting your time talking to me. You should be talking with a third party to take over their strategy, because it's readily apparent that no one currently leading a third party has any clue how to win.
Point and case, third parties could barely break 5% combined against Hillary and Trump.
Cause all the AmeriDrones are already too brainwashed to even consider the option cause "it will never win".
If you don't need their votes, keep acting like you can order them to vote like you want. You can always blame them for the results, but you'll still have the results.
The party would rather lose to Trump and have someone to blame than try to appeal to the voters it regards with withering contempt. It may make you feel morally superior to scream at people, but that doesn't move the needle in the direction you need.
Pretty much. If fascism takes over America centrist Democrats will be partly to blame
Won't stop them from blaming all the people they alienated.
Weird so many in this thread seem to think if you insult people for not wanting to be genocided, they'll support the candidate you like. Make it feel more clear that these people don't actually care about them and just see them as pawns for their own goals.
"Vote for me to do shit you hate, moron! Wait... why are you staying home?"
If you refuse to vote for the option that will result in the fewest Palestinians being killed, you care more about your ideals than you do their lives. Full stop. You aren't an ally if you're content with letting the more deadly option win because the less deadly option is still lethal.
As I keep having to say, I'm voting for Biden.
The party needs to start trying to get back votes it's losing. That is if they care about beating Trump and not just having yet another opportunity to punch left and never right.
I know you are, that's why I find it interesting to engage with you. You understand what I'm saying if you're voting for Biden.
I don't disagree. I'm all for discussing what Democrats can realistically do so long as we agree that Trump is an existential threat that takes priority over everything else.
So, let's discuss it. We both know that outright telling Israel to go fuck itself isn't an option. What do you think would be the best, realistic way to stop their massacre while alienating the fewest voters overall and leveraging our relationship to put pressure on them?
It takes priority over everything else for a certain segment of the party. Expecting it to take priority over everything else for the entire party gets people leaving the party as we're seeing here.
Sadly yes. One of us is sad about it, and the other is gloating.
We both know that the party doesn't actually care about stopping the massacre. They'll do as little as possible to upset the status quo of supporting Israel no matter what they do. Someone high up in the centrist wing of the party needs to advocate for placing conditions on aid. It'll be a bill of goods, of course. The party deals in bills of goods. It's exceedingly good at promising things and then preventing itself from delivering, like with the public option, bbb, and increasing the minimum wage.
The party isn't even bothering to make empty promises it has no intention of keeping here.
Well at the very least I'll need to keep a closer eye on my tone, because I very much do not want to gloat about Israel having support. The rest of what you said is good food for thought too, even if I tend to disagree initially.
These comments are crazy. No political party in power in the united states deserves support. Its those who cling to the democratic party who are "electing" trump by not moving to support a new alternate. Those who are promoting and supporting politicians who support genocide are those who are in the wrong and who are sabotaging progress.
I’m not clinging to the Democratic Party. I’m simply aware of how first past the post voting works.
That just tells you there can only be two dominant parties. Which parties are those two can change. Those who keep supporting democrats are still the ones preventing it from being another party. If it not democrats, it would be a different one...
I’ll bet you any amount of money that either Dems or reps win the next election. How much would you like to wager?
I'd bet its not democrats if people stopped voting for them.
Maybe I wasn’t clear.
I’ll bet you any amount you like that no third party wins the next election. You game?
The fact that no one ever takes me up on this shows y’all fucking know I’m right but don’t want to admit it.
If they won, they would no longer be a third party. If democrats became a third party, another party would become first party.
That’s why I worded it the way I did the first time.
I bet you $1000 that either the Democrat or the Republican wins the next presidential election.
No one is disagreeing about that. Its irrelevant to the topic.
It directly contradicts your claim that another party can win.
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
occupypolice 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.
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.