“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
The guy running against Biden has far worse policies with regard to Muslims. If that guy wins it “proves” America wants the worse policies, potentially causing Democrats to switch to those policies to try to win.
Luckily, this is a publicity stunt that I don’t foresee changing any actual votes.
If Biden’s stance on Israel is driving away voters, that’s just normal. This is one of those important polarizing issues, and he can’t avoid accountability, for good or bad. The death count and coverage has guaranteed that.
As for “America wants” language, that doesn’t mean anything. Different people have different goals.
Who are Zionists actually voting for? If it’s not the Democratic party, then why would he continue to be pro-Israel? Whom is he pandering to with that stance?
There are many reasons politicians might be pro war. The military industrial complex is too powerful, among other things.
Sure, it’s shorthand, but the idea is that the Democratic Party might nominate a presidential candidate who has harsher views about Muslims and Palestine, if they see those views being the reason they lost, or among the reasons they lost.
They would see that they had the “better” policies and still didn’t get the votes from the people who care most passionately about them, so their approach did not work. Maybe they go closer to the protesters view to try to get their votes, or maybe they give up on the protesters as a voting bloc since they couldn’t even get their vote when they had the “better” policies. That would entail going further away from the protesters views.
Either could happen, I don’t know the polling, but my point is that it isn’t just “we will take 4 years of Trump to make our point and make Democrats listen,” they may be taking 4 years of Trump and then proving that no one should align their policy views with theirs going forward because it hurts more than it helps.
deleted by creator
Trump provided military assistance, approved arms sales, and personally vetoed a bill to end US military assistance to the Saudis in Yemen which is considered a genocide as well.
And his Israel “peace plan” was literally just giving the Israelis everything they wanted so if you’re giving him credit for Israel/Palestine actions you’re literally just giving him credit for not being the president when this happened. He absolutely would have been worse for Palestinians, he just didn’t have the power at the time.
Then they stay home to vote “neither of the above” or in more active form cast ballot voting for “Mickley mouse” aka foiled ballot.
Trump was trying to oppress them personally. Maybe sympathy for those suffering a genocide is more important to them than their own safety, but maybe it shouldn’t be.
Also, do you really think Trump wouldn’t support Israel killing every last Palestinian they could?
deleted by creator
Oh, so just the families of those citizens. Gotcha. I’m sure Trump won’t do worse next time.
Also, that isn’t all he did. He wanted a national registry of Muslim-Americans, for example.
Please, explain to me how doing that wouldn’t be oppressing them.
…and the American base never fails to show its sheer, utter stupidity.
Good thing there’s someone else running in the primary that’s polling 10 times higher than that guy.