Where, exactly, did I say Trump would help LGBTQIA+ people, Women, and EM/POC?
My point is that Liberals need to drop the idea that Trump would be materially worse than Harris on Gaza, because both Harris and Trump have fully backed Israel via weapon shipments, and therefore Muslim-Americans being unable to back Muslim genocide will likely cost Harris Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I think you’re right about both the weapons being the primary factor and that neither party will stop shipping them, though I also think Harris would put more pressure on Israel to end the atrocities and push for ceasefire. It’s admittedly not nearly enough, but American politics never is.
though I also think Harris would put more pressure on Israel to end the atrocities and push for ceasefire.
What does this materially look like? Harris has taken a firmly anti-Hamas stance, and promised to not cease arming Israel. Even if she wanted to get a ceasefire, if she continues to arm Israel, Israel will continue their settler-colonial genocide, and won’t stop until Gaza is flattened entirely.
Rather than placing undue hopes on the DNC being better than the GOP with respect to genocide, it’s important to highlight that continuing genocide materially hurts the DNC’s reelection chances due to swing state potential.
Focusing on the materially changes a Harris or Trump administration would have on Palestinians is a great point.
I don’t know what material difference Harris would make, and vibes alone aren’t a good way make those kinds of decisions.
I do believe a Trump presidency would be worse for Muslims in America and I think that’s a valuable metric to consider, but, fuck, even if I think Harris is the pragmatic choice, I couldn’t wholly condem someone for being less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who will continue the genocide of their friends and family.
I’ve also become fairly pessimistic about progress in the US, but I think it’s incredibly important to buck against the rise of the right-wing authoritarianism in the US and unfortunately that means supporting the DNC this year.
Focusing on the materially changes a Harris or Trump administration would have on Palestinians is a great point.
I don’t know what material difference Harris would make, and vibes alone aren’t a good way make those kinds of decisions.
Yep. People often get lost in the idea that because the GOP is so bad, the DNC must be better, but in certain topics comparing side-by-side there is little, if any, material difference, and the support for Israel is one instance that has bipartisan support (among congress).
I do believe a Trump presidency would be worse for Muslims in America and I think that’s a valuable metric to consider, but, fuck, even if I think Harris is the pragmatic choice, I couldn’t wholly condem someone for being less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who will continue the genocide of their friends and family .
That’s the thing, if Muslim Americans are evaluating that it is more important to move away from genocide than coalesce with the DNC and perpetuate it, the onus is on the DNC for not representing their normal base in swing-states.
Realistically, neither. The driving factor of the genocide is weapon shipments to Israel, both parties have promised unwavering support to Israel.
So it would not help, instead it would hurt every single LGBTQ+ person, woman and non white person in the US. I guess you don’t care about them
Where, exactly, did I say Trump would help LGBTQIA+ people, Women, and EM/POC?
My point is that Liberals need to drop the idea that Trump would be materially worse than Harris on Gaza, because both Harris and Trump have fully backed Israel via weapon shipments, and therefore Muslim-Americans being unable to back Muslim genocide will likely cost Harris Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I think you’re right about both the weapons being the primary factor and that neither party will stop shipping them, though I also think Harris would put more pressure on Israel to end the atrocities and push for ceasefire. It’s admittedly not nearly enough, but American politics never is.
What does this materially look like? Harris has taken a firmly anti-Hamas stance, and promised to not cease arming Israel. Even if she wanted to get a ceasefire, if she continues to arm Israel, Israel will continue their settler-colonial genocide, and won’t stop until Gaza is flattened entirely.
Rather than placing undue hopes on the DNC being better than the GOP with respect to genocide, it’s important to highlight that continuing genocide materially hurts the DNC’s reelection chances due to swing state potential.
Focusing on the materially changes a Harris or Trump administration would have on Palestinians is a great point.
I don’t know what material difference Harris would make, and vibes alone aren’t a good way make those kinds of decisions.
I do believe a Trump presidency would be worse for Muslims in America and I think that’s a valuable metric to consider, but, fuck, even if I think Harris is the pragmatic choice, I couldn’t wholly condem someone for being less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who will continue the genocide of their friends and family.
I’ve also become fairly pessimistic about progress in the US, but I think it’s incredibly important to buck against the rise of the right-wing authoritarianism in the US and unfortunately that means supporting the DNC this year.
Yep. People often get lost in the idea that because the GOP is so bad, the DNC must be better, but in certain topics comparing side-by-side there is little, if any, material difference, and the support for Israel is one instance that has bipartisan support (among congress).
That’s the thing, if Muslim Americans are evaluating that it is more important to move away from genocide than coalesce with the DNC and perpetuate it, the onus is on the DNC for not representing their normal base in swing-states.