“After extensive consultation, discussion, and deliberation, the American Muslim 2024 Election Task Force has decided to encourage American Muslims to vote for any presidential candidate of their choosing who supports a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and a US arms embargo on the Israeli government, such as candidates Dr Jill Stein, Dr Cornel West or Chase Oliver,” read the statement, obtained by Middle East Eye.
The statement was written by the American Muslim 2024 Election Task Force, an umbrella group formed this year that consists of a number of prominent Muslim organisations including the political arms of Americans for Justice in Palestine (AJP), Cair, and the US Council of Muslim Organizations.
“We cannot endorse Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy because of her refusal to even consider imposing the arms embargo on the Israeli government required by US laws and her failure to promise any other changes whatsoever to President Biden’s failed policy of steadfast financial, diplomatic and military support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” the statement read.
Nope, it likely won’t happen before the election. However, I don’t see why you think the DNC wouldn’t collaborate with the GOP to stomp out Revolution equally, both serve the United States.
Your choices for the presidential election are DNC and GOP. If you think that those options are completely equivocal, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.
I reject both, hence the necessity for pointing out that electoralism will not save us.
Reject both all you want. One will run the country in 4 months.
Yep, and both will crush protestors and support genocide, so Leftists need to organize to protect themselves regardless.
I don’t understand why you can’t recognize that you can do both. Voting to mitigate as much damage as possible doesn’t mean DON’T organize and protect yourself. Casting a vote for the party that is less likely to trample individual rights in less arenas is more effective than wasting a vote on something that has a net negative effect. Voting is the absolute minimum and takes near zero time and effort and has potential (depending on where you live) to affect millions of lives.
That party is PSL, the DNC and GOP are far more similar than different.
You also haven’t proven this “net negative effect” of increasing exposure for PSL.
Completely agree, DNC & GOP are far too similar. I’m focused on the differences between them. They are also significant.
There is no net negative of increasing exposure for PSL. Increasing PSL exposure is a good thing. The net negative is in voting PSL on a presidential ballot. There are not enough people concentrated in any area for PSL to register enough to cause any exposure. It simply won’t register in a contest this large. Voting PSL in that contest is only taking votes away from one of the two parties that are going to win. If we can agree that DNC and GOP have differences between them, then those differences should be enough to decide where to spend your vote in that contest. The net negative comes in where the vote for PSL could have fallen in one of the two columns that matter in this contest. Instead of going in those columns, it causes those columns to come up one vote short.
Having a PSL candidate that gained 16% running for Mayor of Long Beach in 2010 is a great way to increase exposure. That’s a blip that registers. That’s only possible in local elections at the moment.
Please, read theory.
This forces the parties to make concessions, while gaining exposure.
You’re trying to say that minor, inconsequential elections are the best way to increase visibility? That’s utterly nonsensical, and very liberal.