Well, if this causes a problem for Harris in Wisconsin, and Trump wins because of it, all their problems will be magically solved when Trump forcibly deports them regardless of legal status (or even citizenship status).
They will never have to worry about voting for the wrong candidate for President again!
There isn’t, in short. Even the followers of Islam who are backing Stein seem to acknowledge this, as per the article,
“We know Jill Stein is not going to make it to the White House, but if she gets 20,000 or 30,000 votes in Wisconsin and Democrats lose, this will be a lesson for them to learn that next time they can’t ignore this vibrant and growing community.”
So it’s not so much about backing the GOP candidate because they think things will be better off with him - but about showing that they have enough power as a voting block to swing the election, so Dems better treat them seriously and listen to and address their concerns.
The article mentions, perhaps somewhat overoptimistically, that Harris’s Jewish support is much stronger. The implication I take away from that is that Harris should agree to the requests of this bloc and hope that the Jewish voters continue to turn out for Harris as well even if her ultimate position ends up being less friendly to them.
I though have some concerns here. The GOP candidate has a Jewish son in law, and also is very much in line with Netanyahu’s policy, more so than Biden or Harris. So I would worry that too strong a shift in position could deliver actual votes to the GOP, and hence sympathize with Harris’s very delicate balancing act here.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims, but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris. That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them, threatened them, called them terrorists, said he’s going to “send them back to where they came from”, and THEN turn around and say it’s valid they do so because they’re trying to make the case that it’s simply about illustrating a point (a threatening one at that)…WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message, straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
I would agree, but I don’t think anyone is saying that. Mostly it seems like the message is meant to be “do better on Gaza and (the State of) Palestine and you’ll have our votes”. This is a much more reasonable stance to take - “you’ll have my vote if you fulfill X”.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims,
I make no such case. (I’m not necessarily denying that racism exists, mind, just that this wasn’t the case I was trying to make in this thread.)
but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris.
I DEFINITELY do not make this case. If anything, I want to figure out how to bridge the gap so they vote Harris.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them
Have you read the article? It’s Stein vs Harris. The guy is trailing at some pathetic 9%. (I figure those are probably the folks who need new eyeglasses and checked the wrong box on the poll tbh.)
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message,
Read the article. I didn’t suggest this message, this is the one that they are giving (or trying to give) to Harris.
straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
Normally a protest vote of this nature is not such a big deal. With the stakes of the current election being seen as a threat to democracy itself, suddenly protest votes are not acceptable.
This is exactly why Uncommitted essentially said, in their refusal to endorse Harris, that a) people should still go out and vote, b) not vote for the GOP, but also, and importantly: c) not vote for third parties or independent.
That said, if I or you give these folks this message, you think they’d be happy to hear it? After all, Uncommitted already said this to them, in a much more polite way (probably the most possible under the circumstances.) Give them this rude message, and most likely they’d double down.
If we’re really serious about getting these votes, we’d have to meet them halfway somehow.
Of course, Harris has stated that she supports a two-state solution and that a ceasefire is needed. It’s not like she’s not trying to meet them - it’s just she’s caught between a rock and a hard place here.
That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
Yes, I would agree - your misinterpreted view of the logic is very much that.
Apologies for asking, but curious as to the nature of your disagreement. Like, which statements do you explicitly disagree with in the above, and why? What’s your alternative take on the above?
I mean, to be fair to those folks, as they are citizens it’s highly unlikely that even that guy could get them all deported.
For all his talk on ‘remigration’ he doesn’t seem to have any more of a real plan on this than on healthcare.
I’ve already expressed my opinion elsewhere (but to reiterate - they should follow the example of Uncommitted and vote in a way to keep the GOP candidate from winning while declining to endorse Harris). The best hope here is that they are voting in the polls for Stein to show their displeasure with Harris but they’ll be more strategic at the ballot bot.
The thing is, in normal times it’s perfectly fine to withhold your vote or use it as a protest vote when you don’t like any of the likely candidates - while knowing that regardless our democratic institutions will be safe and sound and continue to carry on the day.
But at the same time, I’m reminded about Brexit. In particular,
some publicly admitted they intended to use a “protest vote” in the belief the UK was certain to remain in the European Union.
I mean, to be fair to those folks, as they are citizens it’s highly unlikely that even that guy could get them all deported.
Our Supreme Court just gave him a free ticket to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it can be traced back to his official capacity. The only check on this is impeachment, which fails as long as 34 Senators are on his side.
Health Care was a bugaboo for him because he needed to get Congress to go along, and those people still need to win their own elections. But he would have all the things he needs to deport all the people he doesn’t like, without Congress: a pen to write Executive Orders, a Corps of Engineers to build camps, a complacent Judiciary, and a total lack of a conscience.
Our Supreme Court just gave him a free ticket to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it can be traced back to his official capacity.
Keep in mind though, this is in reference to him being eligible to be criminally charged or civilly sued. In other words, this just prevents him from getting personally punished for it. But it doesn’t give him any new powers.
Health Care was a bugaboo for him because he needed to get Congress to go along, and those people still need to win their own elections.
This predates the SC case you are referring to but it’s the perfect example. If he got reelected he couldn’t just decree the end of the ACA/Obamacare. He couldn’t be punished for not following the rules but he’d still need others to go along with it to make any effective change here.
Also remember - when his “muslim ban” was first put into place, judges were effective in blocking it. Only after he changed it to a more palatable form did the SC approve it and allow it to be enforced. (One of those changes? Allowing dual citizens and green card holders.)
But he would have all the things he needs to deport all the people he doesn’t like, without Congress: a pen to write Executive Orders, a Corps of Engineers to build camps, a complacent Judiciary, and a total lack of a conscience.
I think the part we disagree on here is the “complacent judiciary” bit. I wouldn’t say that’s not true - but allowing deportation of natural born citizens with no other citizenship would be a tough swallow even for the current SC.
(Normally, there’d be another headache here - if successfully stripped of citizenship, these folks would have no other, so they’d have no country to be deported to. But I think you addressed that in your response - presumably his plan would be that they’d just be kept in interment camps build by the Engineering Corps until some country takes pity and accepted them, or until they die.)
Well, if this causes a problem for Harris in Wisconsin, and Trump wins because of it, all their problems will be magically solved when Trump forcibly deports them regardless of legal status (or even citizenship status).
They will never have to worry about voting for the wrong candidate for President again!
I disagree.
That’s your prerogative, of course. But sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is one of those times.
In your opinion. Which I support and respect your right to have. But I’m going a different way.
What way is that? In what world does Trump get any of this group what they want?
I’m voting third party. You can vote how you want. And Muslim Americans can vote how they want.
There isn’t, in short. Even the followers of Islam who are backing Stein seem to acknowledge this, as per the article,
So it’s not so much about backing the GOP candidate because they think things will be better off with him - but about showing that they have enough power as a voting block to swing the election, so Dems better treat them seriously and listen to and address their concerns.
The article mentions, perhaps somewhat overoptimistically, that Harris’s Jewish support is much stronger. The implication I take away from that is that Harris should agree to the requests of this bloc and hope that the Jewish voters continue to turn out for Harris as well even if her ultimate position ends up being less friendly to them.
I though have some concerns here. The GOP candidate has a Jewish son in law, and also is very much in line with Netanyahu’s policy, more so than Biden or Harris. So I would worry that too strong a shift in position could deliver actual votes to the GOP, and hence sympathize with Harris’s very delicate balancing act here.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims, but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris. That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them, threatened them, called them terrorists, said he’s going to “send them back to where they came from”, and THEN turn around and say it’s valid they do so because they’re trying to make the case that it’s simply about illustrating a point (a threatening one at that)…WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message, straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
I would agree, but I don’t think anyone is saying that. Mostly it seems like the message is meant to be “do better on Gaza and (the State of) Palestine and you’ll have our votes”. This is a much more reasonable stance to take - “you’ll have my vote if you fulfill X”.
I make no such case. (I’m not necessarily denying that racism exists, mind, just that this wasn’t the case I was trying to make in this thread.)
I DEFINITELY do not make this case. If anything, I want to figure out how to bridge the gap so they vote Harris.
Have you read the article? It’s Stein vs Harris. The guy is trailing at some pathetic 9%. (I figure those are probably the folks who need new eyeglasses and checked the wrong box on the poll tbh.)
Read the article. I didn’t suggest this message, this is the one that they are giving (or trying to give) to Harris.
Normally a protest vote of this nature is not such a big deal. With the stakes of the current election being seen as a threat to democracy itself, suddenly protest votes are not acceptable.
This is exactly why Uncommitted essentially said, in their refusal to endorse Harris, that a) people should still go out and vote, b) not vote for the GOP, but also, and importantly: c) not vote for third parties or independent.
That said, if I or you give these folks this message, you think they’d be happy to hear it? After all, Uncommitted already said this to them, in a much more polite way (probably the most possible under the circumstances.) Give them this rude message, and most likely they’d double down.
If we’re really serious about getting these votes, we’d have to meet them halfway somehow.
Of course, Harris has stated that she supports a two-state solution and that a ceasefire is needed. It’s not like she’s not trying to meet them - it’s just she’s caught between a rock and a hard place here.
Yes, I would agree - your misinterpreted view of the logic is very much that.
Apologies for asking, but curious as to the nature of your disagreement. Like, which statements do you explicitly disagree with in the above, and why? What’s your alternative take on the above?
I mean, to be fair to those folks, as they are citizens it’s highly unlikely that even that guy could get them all deported.
For all his talk on ‘remigration’ he doesn’t seem to have any more of a real plan on this than on healthcare.
I’ve already expressed my opinion elsewhere (but to reiterate - they should follow the example of Uncommitted and vote in a way to keep the GOP candidate from winning while declining to endorse Harris). The best hope here is that they are voting in the polls for Stein to show their displeasure with Harris but they’ll be more strategic at the ballot bot.
The thing is, in normal times it’s perfectly fine to withhold your vote or use it as a protest vote when you don’t like any of the likely candidates - while knowing that regardless our democratic institutions will be safe and sound and continue to carry on the day.
But at the same time, I’m reminded about Brexit. In particular,
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-anger-bregret-leave-voters-protest-vote-thought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html
Our Supreme Court just gave him a free ticket to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it can be traced back to his official capacity. The only check on this is impeachment, which fails as long as 34 Senators are on his side.
Health Care was a bugaboo for him because he needed to get Congress to go along, and those people still need to win their own elections. But he would have all the things he needs to deport all the people he doesn’t like, without Congress: a pen to write Executive Orders, a Corps of Engineers to build camps, a complacent Judiciary, and a total lack of a conscience.
Keep in mind though, this is in reference to him being eligible to be criminally charged or civilly sued. In other words, this just prevents him from getting personally punished for it. But it doesn’t give him any new powers.
This predates the SC case you are referring to but it’s the perfect example. If he got reelected he couldn’t just decree the end of the ACA/Obamacare. He couldn’t be punished for not following the rules but he’d still need others to go along with it to make any effective change here.
Also remember - when his “muslim ban” was first put into place, judges were effective in blocking it. Only after he changed it to a more palatable form did the SC approve it and allow it to be enforced. (One of those changes? Allowing dual citizens and green card holders.)
I think the part we disagree on here is the “complacent judiciary” bit. I wouldn’t say that’s not true - but allowing deportation of natural born citizens with no other citizenship would be a tough swallow even for the current SC.
(Normally, there’d be another headache here - if successfully stripped of citizenship, these folks would have no other, so they’d have no country to be deported to. But I think you addressed that in your response - presumably his plan would be that they’d just be kept in interment camps build by the Engineering Corps until some country takes pity and accepted them, or until they die.)