this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
107 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18966 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An ad campaign in the state, funded by a group that appears tied to Republicans, seems designed to remind Muslim voters of Kamala Harris’s pro-Israel views and her husband’s Jewish faith.

“Doug Emhoff,” a narrator says, “would be the first Jewish presidential spouse ever.”

The strategy behind the spot seems to be far more cynical.

A super PAC that appears to have Republican ties is targeting Michigan residents — including those in Detroit-area ZIP codes that are home to many Muslim Americans and Arab Americans — with YouTube advertisements that highlight Vice President Kamala Harris’s support for Israel and, in some cases, the Jewish faith of her husband, Mr. Emhoff.

As the narrator cheerfully notes Mr. Emhoff’s religion, an image of the Israeli flag appears onscreen, a dog whistle conjuring the antisemitic trope of dual loyalty.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

REAL JEWS vote for the EXACT people Running these Ads that claim JEWS are BAD!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So... you seem to be saying that 'real jews' (whatever they are) vote Republican? Seems an iffy thing to assert, or are you are just commenting on how odd it would be to vote for someone who bad mouths you?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

Sorry bro, sarcasm train left 20 minutes ago and you ain't on it

load more comments (1 replies)