-13
Leading US imams and scholars urge Muslim voters to snub Kamala Harris over Gaza
(www.middleeasteye.net)
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
-13 points (35.6% liked)
News
23014 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, it's far better to help Trump win. You know, the wanna be dictator who has already said he wants Israel to hurry up and get it over with. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.
Ha stupid Palestinians not wanting to vote for someone who promised to continue arming the state that is killing their families! Wow what idiots. Do they want a Trump presidency? What dumb dumbs, they clearly don't understand democracy: you vote for us otherwise it'll get even worse.
Pressuring their preferred candidate to change their policies by saying they'll vote third party because of this issue? NO! The only way is slavish loyalty, that way they'll know they can do what they want and it won't affect their vote share.
Jokes aside: I do think Harris is better on this issue (and people should still vote for her) but surely you can see how this disingenuous criticism really side steps the issue. What if it was your family, so you tried to push change on this issue with your only tangible democratic power and then some jumped up boot licker starts lecturing you on how this is actually stupid because the other guy will kill your family FASTER? I would tell that person to fuck all the way off.
It's almost like being a single issue voter is moronic.
Also, protest votes only hurt everyone and help nobody in a voting system like we have. Look at Brexit: most of those were protest votes against Labour, not actual votes for Brexit. Or look at the votes for Jill Stein in Michigan, where she got more votes than Clinton lost by. Every pregnant woman in the US is at higher risk now because of those protest votes.
Yeah but when the single issue is genocide? I don't know, I can understand the moral argument that is always wrong to support that. I can understand not wanting your tax dollars to pay for the death and destruction we've been watching for the past year.
I understand your point, don't agree with single issue voting in most cases and I also wouldn't vote third party or encourage anyone to do so BUT I can see the point and lecturing people about Trump does nothing whatsoever to address it.
Lol I can only assume you are not British. Protesting Labour in the 6th year of a conservative government for.... what exactly? There are a lot of stupid things that led to the Brexit vote but this is not one of them.
No. Because the democrats did not win over enough voters to take the presidency. They ran a candidate people didn't like that much and lost. That is on THEM.
Just because Labour wasn't in power doesn't mean people weren't unhappy with them. I remember watching the news interviews at the time, and some of the people who voted to Exit said they didn't really want to Exit they just wanted to put out a protest vote against Corbyn. Also, polls showed at the time that only 52% of Labour voters thought Labour was in favor of Remain, so there was generally bad messaging by Labour.
Look, you can argue that the single issue is so important it should take precedence, but the end result of not voting for Harris means... even more genocide! So go ahead and single issue vote on something that will get you more of what you don't want. Anyone voting for Stein in a swing state is either someone who gains something from the 3rd party getting more votes, or is someone who doesn't understand the implications of a Trump presidency. If you live in CA or AL or OK or NY, sure, protest against Harris.
Also, I like how you blame the Democrats for Trump winning when the people actually voted. The people deserve some blame for the consequence of their actions. Yes, Clinton was a shitty candidate who I predicted losing because everyone hates her so much... but in the end there were a lot of people who are now worse off because they decided it would be better to vote for Stein.
You are literally talking out of your arse. "Some" people may have been protesting Corbyn... not saying much?... about it. But Cameron was the face of remain. He was the logical target for a protest vote. And if you really did watch the interviews around the time of Brexit and especially the exit polls after the election you would know that most people said some nonsense about "sovereignty" but the next most common and incredibly obvious reason was immigration. The idea that is was primarily or even substantially about Corbyn is completely ludicrous.
I am just saying I understand their perspective and pointing out that this "Trump is worse" response completely ignores the overwhelming moral case for opposing a genocide. It is pathetic as a response to what people are saying. It's myopically election focused at a time when people are dying with full US backing.
So you predicted she would lose, and many other people did, and the DNC did not listen. Then some people didn't see the gravity of the situation and made bad voting decisions, absolutely. But they are just random people who may be more engaged with work and paying their bills than they are with making unintuitive voting decisions. Partially their fault, mainly the dems fault
Not killing innocent people is a pretty good single issue, though.
No, it's an absolutely shitty, irrelevant single issue when there are only two viable candidates and they take similar positions on it.
Me: "Not killing innocent people is a pretty good single issue, though."
You: "No, it’s an absolutely shitty, irrelevant single issue..."
Okay. I will stop expecting humans to treat other humans with decency. After all, we can't expect innocent people not to be oppressed and exploited. Frankly, I only get cheap technology because of slave labour, so therefore I have to not care about humans. At least I'm doing well, living in a country with a generally higher standard of living.
Thanks for setting my mind at ease. I will swap my moral expectations for being complacent. That will make the world better, because - as we know - the human drive for profit is not in any way creating outcomes that are bad for the world.
If it turns out I'm lying to myself I can just end my life. For, after all, life is not an important issue. Easy come, easy go.
It's an absolutely shitty, irrelevant single issue IN THIS ELECTION because there's no meaningful difference between the two candidates on it. (Actually, there is a meaningful difference but the trolls are trying to propagandize against the candidate that's less bad on it, so clearly they don't actually give a flying fuck about the thing they dishonestly claim to care about.)
But you damn well already fucking knew that, so quit your bullshit strawmanning.
Human lives are not an irrelevant issue. You pretending to rationalise otherwise makes it clear that you would happily be rationalising voting for Trump, as long as it brought benefits to you. "Yeah, well, he might oppress queer people and immigrants and women, BUT he would lower business tax and I'd make a profit." (Unless, of course, you're not rationalising, and you just don't care about when people who aren't you die).
I don't solely care about what's best for me. I care about other beings. That you don't agree is of no interest to me, except to make a mental note to not take on board your sense of morality.
If, as you say, these two candidates are so similar when it comes to protecting innocent lives, I won't vote for either of them.
You're so angry that I'm not voting for Harris. I can imagine you easily pivoting to be angry I'm not voting for Trump. You present absolutely nothing of interest to me, as you are motivated solely by what you prefer. The chance of you making the world better, at this moment, seems to be zero.
The game is this: present two options, one far-right and one centre-right. And people will argue for and against the sadness of always having to vote for the lesser of two evils. This will distract at least some of them from the fact that things don't get better, because "we lost because you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils", or "at least we defeated that far-right candidate".
It's a very simple game.