114

Tim Walz makes direct appeal to conflicted Muslim voters (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 15 hours ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 9 hours ago

The most fundamentally disappointing aspect of Harris is that she's had all the room in the world for ambiguity and platitudes to sweep the problem under the rug. She doesn't need to even promise anything, just indicate she's concerned about the motivations of the far right Israeli government and will look at all options to promote a just and peaceful Middle East. Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn't going to lose her any Democratic votes, at least not in places as important as Michigan where not doing it is a potentially campaign defining choice.

It's like the centrist establishment has some inherent desire to force that "you have to vote for us" choice on disgruntled Democratic factions even though they could just solve the disagreement. If they start acknowledging the left side of the party as being worth listening to, even if doing so is trivially easy, then it sets a bad precedent.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 8 points 6 hours ago

"At the same time what has happened in Gaza in the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking,", "Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self determination."

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc

So, she is saying that what is happening in Gaza is wrong(this was before the recent attacks in Lebanon) and is for a two state solution, which is about as far as you can go.

Harris said she told Netanyahu “it is time to get this deal done.”

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/25/nx-s1-5048285/harris-gaza-war

Hence direct claims to actually push for a ceasefire.

There are a few problems. First of all she is not president right now, so she can not stop Biden from sending bombs to Israel. Biden is about as bad as they get for Democrats. At the same time, her openly going against it is a big problem, as she is part of the administration. Secondly Trump already made a deal with Netanyahu, that they are not going to agree to a ceasefire until the election, to help Trump win. That alone should be a big endoresment of Harris.

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

So a candidate that openly supports Israel expects people to take her on faith that she will support those her party has supported killing.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago

well, the worst people in israel are all gunning for trump. When there is no option for victory sometimes denying the most evil people on earth a win is the best we can do.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago

@Zaktor@sopuli.xyz and this is why ambiguity does not work in this case.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

It worked for LBJ, however.

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn't going to lose her any Democratic votes

No, but it would cost her millions in donations and support from Zionist lobbies. It would also push those same lobbies to more heavily donate and support the GOP. Not to mention the millions that would be at stake from weapons manufacturing lobbies who would see any wavering on Israel support as potential to lose one of their biggest buyer. All that lost money would lead to a loss in votes.

The world is complicated and a tangled mess.

[-] match@pawb.social 1 points 54 minutes ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago)

AIPAC is "only" responsible for around $20 million in fundraising this cycle, I think it's more that she needs the support of her actual elected party members who are pro-israel

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago

Then they made their choice. They chose the lobbyists.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 hours ago

And money wins elections in the US.

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 31 points 11 hours ago

“We understand that some Muslim voters, any voter, may feel a moral dilemma voting for [Harris]. I do. My family does,” said Wa’el Alzayat, the CEO of Emgage Action. “But a vote for a third-party candidate is the road to victory for Donald Trump.”

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

People have to hope Harris willing to change her mind after praising Dick Cheney and ass kissing Israel every time she is near a mic. I don't see that happening at all.

[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 23 points 9 hours ago

The difference is that even if Harris continues the policies of the Biden administration, the American citizens should feel safe enough to protest those policies and maybe something will change?

Under a trump administration the idea of people being able to protest safely is less certain.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -3 points 6 hours ago

"The American citizens should feel safe enough to ignore the issue because they are not impacted by it".

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world -5 points 8 hours ago

Protesting is becoming more criminalized under this admin. We just witnessed state violence against college students and protesters are getting hit with Rico charges. I wouldn't say they are more safe protesting under either admin.

[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

You're right there has been some shitty things happening to protestors that for the most part have shown great restraint with the way they're protesting. But an honest question, is this a feature of the Biden administration or are the crack downs happening at a more local level?

Because what I have seen and heard about from trump and his lessor demons is the desire to make protests illegal on a Federal level and to uphold that idea with state sponsored violence.

There is an argument to be made that Biden, as President to all Americans, should be making a statement to condemn these violent acts against mostly peaceful protestors at the very least and I have not seen that from him which is disappointing. But yet he and his administration have not in any way pushed for legislation to outlaw the protests. Nor has he tried to coerce the media from reporting on it. I don't have faith that a trump administration would do that.

I also understand why people are frustrated that the best we have is "well we will let you protest (with a little violence), but we will not really listen to you." But at least we get to stay on the path of democracy and hopefully there can be better candidates that can start to shift the focus in a different, better direction. As much as people want big changes to happen right now, unfortunately the country is too big and too entrenched for that to be reality. BUT it can change if we can keep it from becoming a dictatorship.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 hours ago

The fact that so many people refuse to recognize the chilling effect and implicit threat of AIPAC in the context of the election vis a vis “what you say about supporting Israel” continues to baffle me. Like, if any candidate says anything sharply critical of Israel, they’ll take their dump truck of money and just give it to the other candidate. That’s the game. That’s it.

Being reticent/“status quo” about Israel in the context of the campaign is (tragically, but also directly due to Citizens United and effectively uncontrolled political spending) is the best play here, and I hope her actual policy is materially different from the status quo. But I recognize she simply can’t say that unless she wants to score a campaign finance own-goal on herself.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -4 points 8 hours ago

The fact that so many people refuse to recognize the chilling effect and implicit threat of AIPAC in the context of the election vis a vis “what you say about supporting Israel” continues to baffle me.

Oh, we're not. We see that the centrist wing of the party is fucking delighted to support genocide in exchange for AIPAC shoveling money at centrist challengers to progressive incumbents.

[-] zante@lemmy.wtf 20 points 14 hours ago

They’re about to bomb iran on behalf of Israel so this will need to be some pitch.

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 hours ago

Some Sunni may even cheer Iran getting bombed. Sunnis and shiites really hate each others guts.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago

Not all of them all the time. Hamas are a bunch of radical Sunnis, who like Iran for example. However Al Qaeda and the Taliban really do hate Iran. Iran even told the US were to bomb Taliban positions, which was a big reason why the US could invade Afghanistan as easily as they did. Both Iran and the Taliban also fight the Islamic State.

The entire region is really complex and yes some Sunnis are going to cheer Iran being bombed, like the Saudis for example, others will not.

[-] Hamartia@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

All Sunnis and all Shiites hate each other? Even unto death?

Well then they must be truely barbaric and therefore deserving of the decades of avarice inspired wrath meted out upon them by successive US governments and their proxy settler colony.

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz -1 points 8 hours ago

Without excusing western societies, at all, it’s a fact that many Muslim, not all, countries that use the Sharia as a basic legal framework, in literal interpretations, are fucking barbaric. So yes. And let me repeat, not excusing western societies. One thing doesn’t excuse the other.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago

Western "society" and Muslim "barbarians" which need to taught how to be "civilized". Where have we heard this rhetoric before

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 0 points 1 hour ago

Where have we heard this rhetoric before

.ml

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 25 points 14 hours ago

Imagine instead of spending money and effort to create a “Arab Americans for Harris-Walz” propaganda group, that they listened to their voters and made it policy to stop supporting genocide.

[+] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world -9 points 9 hours ago

Some speakers on Thursday's call with Walz made it clear that their support for Harris comes with reservations, with one prominent Muslim Democrat saying voting for her was the “least bad thing.”

Surely there will be no negative effect on turnout from forcing people into picking the "least bad" option. Very safe and sensible strategy.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 17 points 9 hours ago

Every election is the least bad option every time. Anyone who thinks different lives in a fantasy world. Real life always disappoints.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world -5 points 8 hours ago

This is genocide, not just healthcare policy or something

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

This is America. Genocide has been our policy for hundreds of years.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Its going to take hundreds of elections to vote your way away from the genocide country, founded by genocide, built by genocide and stopping them from participating in genocide. You'd have to run the pro genocide people out of every dime they have by supporting their opponents. And they're spending money to defeat democrats right now.

A general strike could do it sooner, but it would be brutal, painful and require a level of solidarity above and beyond lecturing people on an online forum

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Centrists successfully fought against the public option but refuse to oppose genocide.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I also particularly enjoy the insinuation that expecting a candidate to oppose or at least not actively support genocide is "living in a fantasy world."

I remember back not that long ago when any democrat would have proudly told you that they would never support genocide under any circumstances. For some of them it turns out there's a clause of "unless our ally is doing it and there's an election coming up"

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Yes, they would have told you that. But when it came down to it they'd prevaricate and allow it. Just like drone strikes. Or the Iraq War, which most of the Democrats supported.

I'm not happy about it, but reality has disappointed me way, way too many times to expect anything better.

The fact that we need a government at all is a failure of our species IMHO. We can't be trusted not to be assholes.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Agree 100%. It's sad

[-] pyrflie@lemm.ee -5 points 14 hours ago

"Vote for us or we go into the shooting gallery with you."

Great sell Tim.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for NBC News:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-makes-direct-appeal-conflicted-muslim-voters-rcna173863

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024

114 points (90.1% liked)

politics

18973 readers

3627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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