Just a moment...
www.middleeastmonitor.com

Green Party candidate Jill Stein is gaining ground among Muslim-American voters in three critical swing states: Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin, according to a recent poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Stein leads Vice President and Democrat candidate Kamala Harris in these states, with 40 per cent support in Michigan, 35 per cent in Arizona, and 44 per cent in Wisconsin. This surge in popularity appears tied to Stein’s vocal criticism of US support for Israel during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

  • aalvare2@lemmy.world
    27·
    3 months ago

    No, she agreed to send bombs for children.

    If you earnestly believe that Kamala Harris doesn’t give a damn about children in Gaza, then I can see how you’d make such a charged statement. I disagree, but pulling away from Israel is clearly very complicated and making strong claims to severing Israeli ties could cost her the election.

    I don’t think either of us has anything more to say about the subject that would be constructive, so I’d like to leave this at that.

    You’re missing 9/11, which fundamentally changed America.

    That’s a fair point, 9/11 did fundamentally change America. But then, that feels like it makes your point about FDR even less relevant - do you really think America is back to how it was pre-9/11? Do you think kicking a couple extra points to Stein leads to comparable leftward pressure to the Great Depression, in a post-9/11 America? I say, reward the leftward gains the DNC has already made so they’re incentivized to keep pushing.

    It’s simple, NATO is the most Imperialist offensive coalition on the planet. These countries hyper-exploit the Global South and defend themselves via NATO. Here is an article on it.

    I appreciate you sourcing your argument, but this article touches on a ton of historical conflicts with very little context given to each of them. The premise is that NATO is a chief and unjustified aggressor in all of those conflicts, but I’d need to do further reading on them. This article is not a good starting point as it’s biased and doesn’t provide citations of externally collected data, e.g. on its claim that NATO is responsible for >10m deaths in 25 years (Is that just from every joint NATO operation, or from all of the fighting done by constituent countries? Who were the chief aggressors in the individual conflicts? What was the justification? There’s a lot of info to be broken down).

    No, NATO is not “just a defensive alliance,” go on, have a read. It’s a millitary alliance of Imperialist countries.

    NATO is still a defensive alliance. When NATO takes action outside its jurisdiction, such as in these operations, member countries choose to do so b/c they see that being in their best individual interests. If NATO were disbanded, formerly member countries could still choose to execute joint military operations. All they no longer NEED to do is retaliate against attacks on a former NATO country’s soil. I don’t see how removing that obligation is “the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do”.

    Yes, Russia could have just not invaded, though given the shelling of ethnic-Russians within Ukraine by Kiev it’s impossible to say NATO wasn’t deliberately provoking it as well.

    If you’re talking specifically about the alleged genocide in Donbas, then that’s an unsubstantiated claim by Russia. If you’re only suggesting that Russia had interest in involving itself in the war in Donbas, started by Russia-back separatists in the first place, that still doesn’t even excuse every other region of Ukraine hit by Russia at the start of the war.

    Given the shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk, areas with majority ethnic Russians within Ukraine, Russia decided to take advantage of that and cripple Ukraine’s military. It isn’t “justified,” but that’s what happened, and the invasion never would have happend if NATO wasn’t deliberately encircling Russia. Russia even tried to join NATO, but was denied.

    It’s not that it’s not “justified”, it’s simply not justified. No quotes. Putin has not made a single substantiated claim that would justify its assault on Ukraine.

    Even if it were justified…why make intervention conditional on NATO operations? If something truly horrifying and unjustifiable were happening in Ukraine, but NATO agreed to stop expanding, then Russia would agree to ignore atrocities in Ukraine…why exactly?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      72·
      3 months ago

      If you earnestly believe that Kamala Harris doesn’t give a damn about children in Gaza, then I can see how you’d make such a charged statement.

      It doesn’t matter if she’s laughing or crying, she has promised to always continue to supply Israel with what it’s using to commit genocide. The US supports Israel for economic reasons, not moral.

      That’s a fair point, 9/11 did fundamentally change America. But then, that feels like it makes your point about FDR even less relevant - do you really think America is back to how it was pre-9/11? Do you think kicking a couple extra points to Stein leads to comparable leftward pressure to the Great Depression, in a post-9/11 America? I say, reward the leftward gains the DNC has already made so they’re incentivized to keep pushing.

      The DNC specializes in pretending it’s left wing, when they’ve been sliding to the right. They only bend to pressure.

      I appreciate you sourcing your argument, but this article touches on a ton of historical conflicts with very little context given to each of them. The premise is that NATO is a chief and unjustified aggressor in all of those conflicts, but I’d need to do further reading on them. This article is not a good starting point as it’s biased and doesn’t provide citations of externally collected data, e.g. on its claim that NATO is responsible for >10m deaths in 25 years (Is that just from every joint NATO operation, or from all of the fighting done by constituent countries? Who were the chief aggressors in the individual conflicts? What was the justification? There’s a lot of info to be broken down).

      Everything is biased, everyone is biased. You aren’t going to find many people supportive of NATO openly talking abouy its atrocities.

      If you’re talking specifically about the alleged genocide in Donbas, then that’s an unsubstantiated claim by Russia. If you’re only suggesting that Russia had interest in involving itself in the war in Donbas, started by Russia-back separatists in the first place, that still doesn’t even excuse every other region of Ukraine hit by Russia at the start of the war.

      I’m referring to the fully substantiated shelling of breakaway regions of primarily Ethnic-Russians in Ukraine. I never said it justifies Russian invasion, but that it provoked it.

      Even if it were justified…why make intervention conditional on NATO operations? If something truly horrifying and unjustifiable were happening in Ukraine, but NATO agreed to stop expanding, then Russia would agree to ignore atrocities in Ukraine…why exactly?

      Because Russia has been targeted by NATO since NATO’s inception as an anti-Russian coalition of Imperialist nations who serve as parasited on the Global South. Russia is not acting “morally,” the RF is acting in their material interests. Russia wants NATO to back off, and NATO openly and flagrantly disprespected that wish for decades, leading to the current conflict. There is no conflict without NATO.