Jump to content

Mohamed1993

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,862
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mohamed1993 last won the day on March 14 2018

Mohamed1993 had the most liked content!

About Mohamed1993

  • Rank
    Level 4 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,932 profile views
  1. Thanks! Yeah, I know of this, there's also a group called DSA Richmond, which I follow on social media and am on their listserv. A lot of their work is very centered around rallying and protesting and I'm just not sure if that has as much of an impact as getting involved in a political campaign.
  2. Just donated to his campaign. I want to try to get more involved, but having a full-time job does not help lol.
  3. His campaign has already outraised Kamala Harris' apparently. Lol!
  4. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Tanzania. Public opinion does matter to an extent, I don't think the Vietnam war would've ended had it not been for Americans being fed up of dying in a war that didn't serve the US national security and whose motives seemed increasingly unattainable.
  5. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Well if you live in the Middle East, by all means fight to repair the wrongs committed by Muslims, but if you live in the US, you can only change what your government does, not anyone else's, so it only makes more sense for you to demand more accountability from them. Your argument is as ineffective as saying I killed two people, but those guys over there killed ten, why should you demand accountability from me when those guys are worse? You're only responsible for what you do. Fortunately, the US is a pretty democratic country, that means people can use their voice to demand accountability.
  6. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Jordan took in a lot of Syrian and Iraqi refugees. In any case, should those countries, which literally employ slave labour from India and Pakistan and whose own populations don't understand what it means to work hard be a moral basis for what the US should be?
  7. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    You can't repair everything that goes wrong in history. However, you have some moral responsibility to pay attention to people who have been directly impacted by policies you've supported. Claims for asylum should be processed and heard fairly in court. As for folks who are economic migrants, well the only reason they come is because they take less money than an American will. They do jobs for less pay than Americans will. Eliminate minimum wage then. But see, when you do that those lamenting about how these free trade deals have hurt their job prospects will throw a fit then too. The point is all politicians recognise that the US does rely on illegal immigrants to some extent, but it is easy to use them as a scapegoat for their political campaigns.
  8. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Regardless, that doesn't mean you shun any moral responsibility you have and just ignore your own role in this. And funnily enough you don't see folks fleeing Nicaragua, whose govt. actually fought off the Contras the US backed. Where do most of the migrants come from? Honduras, where the US backed a coup in 2009, Guatemala, whose govt. the US overthrew in the 1950's and El Salvador, where the US backed reactionary groups as well. It's all too convenient to say well those countries were hellholes before, and great powers do what they can to maintain hegemony and then dismiss people who actually flee those conditions. You legitimise the actions of people in power and normalise them and yet condemn those who are victims of those actions. So tell me what would you do if you were in one of those countries and fearing for your life? It's easier to blame people fleeing those conditions until you're actually in that situation yourself. A lot of folks on migrant caravans are from those 3 countries I mentioned. There is obviously some correlation with the violence caused partly by US policy.
  9. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Well they have a right to have their claim to asylum heard if that is what they are claiming. Legality is a funny concept, slavery was legal at one point too. It was also illegal for the US to arm deathsquads in Central America during the cold war, and a lot of the people fleeing are from those countries the US has had a role in destabilising. But so many people would rather just ignore that because it didn't affect them so why bother about legality then?
  10. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Republicans are hypocrites though, they claim to be all like taxes are big government, then they want bloated military spending and counterproductive regime change wars all over the world. They are all up in arms whenever anyone talks of gun reform, being like well the constitution allows it and then proceed to impose state sanctions on folks who boycott Israel, so much for the first amendment. How are democrats focused on illegals? Last I checked Obama deported record numbers. Republicans want to build a wall, but most illegal immigration is not from the Mexican border, its from folks overstaying visas. The wall won't stop that. If building a wall is the solution to fixing crime from drug cartels, then why is taking away guns not a solution to fixing mass shooting? You can make the argument that many gun users don't want to harm anyone, but then many that cross the border to claim asylum don't want to commit crimes either, they simply want a better life for themselves. The statistics and data overwhelmingly show though that immigration does not really pose a problem for unemployment and wages, however the free trade deals, which outsource jobs do, but republicans don't oppose that, since it is technically free-market economics. The numbers also show that the number of illegals crossing the border has declined, so I don't exactly see how they are becoming "increasingly belligerent?"
  11. Do you think it is more effective to tax the wealthy more, or to rely on philanthropic schemes to help improve the quality of life for the underprivileged. Many criticisms have been made of organizations like USAID, the World Bank and the Gates foundation, in that they tend to do more harm than good at times and that some of these wealthy foundations are just a means to portray a better image to the world rather than actually solving problems. People make the argument that you would not have billionaires had it not been for tax evasion and exploitation, and so these billionaires even if they donate billions to charitable causes and start foundations, they are still holding on to billions and hoarding wealth they don't deserve. On the other hand, if you propose taxing people and say you impose very strict monitoring mechanisms that make tax evasion very difficult, the government might be able to recover money in taxes. But then aren't you still relying on the goodwill of government officials to do things that benefit their own populations? The gates foundation for example, has helped millions of people around the world, would such outcomes be possible if that money was spent instead on taxes? Would it be better? Many of the left argue that billionaires shouldn't exist and these philanthropy schemes are at best, inefficient and at worst, a sham. But the question is would paying taxes not create the same issues? Governments are run by the same corrupt humans. On a related note, what do you think about organizations like the IMF and the World Bank? Many oppose the IMF because of the conditions it imposes when it loans out money to a country. But if such conditions are not imposed, then how is the IMF able to recover its money and ensure that the money does not go toward inefficient projects, etc. I can understand the criticisms people have that the IMF imposes structural adjustment policies on governments that hurt its poor and vulnerable populations. But what here is the alternative to prevent governments from spending on things beyond their capacity? A government also always has the option to not borrow from these institutions but they often choose to because of a lack of alternatives, but in such a case then how such a lender provide assistance yet not do so in a way that compromises its own interests?
  12. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    No, it isn't that I have to agree with the person on everything, but the damage done by Republican policies will be a lot worse. It's not about allegiance. You could make the argument that if I don't vote at all, I would've cost a democrat a vote and maybe could've gotten a child separated from their parent at the border and held in detention, or I could've helped starve someone in Yemen/Iran who wouldn't have starved otherwise because of less brutal sanctions or milder support from the US, etc. Politics isn't black and white. Normally I would vote green actually, they are even further to the left of the democrats, but if Omar was a candidate in my district, I would vote for her. There's no room for Muslims otherwise in US politics. The republicans will probably throw a fit at the idea of having a Muslim candidate run for president even after the big deal they made about Obama, so the only other option is democrats or green (but they aren't mainstream enough to have enough of an impact).
  13. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    Very few Jews are going to say Israel shouldn't exist as a state, that is true. They are critical of specific Israeli policies, like the settlements, the blockade of Gaza, etc. Personally seeing this evolvement is also important. If you can find peace within the context of a two-state solution, well that won't be ideal, but its better than what the situation is at the moment. I personally favour a single state, but I don't know what such a state will look like, possibly will just have endless violence and bloodshed. Short of a war of destruction, which no one will launch against Israel, I don't see a one-state solution happening. Maybe if BDS is that successful, but it is not really harming Israel significantly at this point.
  14. Mohamed1993

    The Firestorm on Ilhan Omar

    The MIC cuts across party lines, but there are democrats who are more vocal about it, the only republicans who are, are libertarian types like Rand Paul, and he's not really a Republican. As for the other two issues, I live in a secular country, and if people have decided that they want those things, that's their prerogative, I can choose not to do those things rather than have a state regulate not just those things, but also all too willingly impose laws that will turn this country into some Christian supremacist state, which will trample on my first amendment rights to practice my religion freely. Look at how much outrage there is among Republicans about a Muslim congresswoman, why the heck would I vote for them? US troops are still there, and don't mistake Trump for a Ron Paul, that's not who he is. He cares about his campaign promises and that's it. He pulled out of the Iran deal, which Clinton wouldn't have done, despite the fact that she had other issues on Foreign Policy, he intensified the war in Yemen and is now threatening to overthrow Venezuela. He has also escalated airstrikes and drone strikes, which have killed way more civilians than under Obama. I am also concerned about a party that denies climate change, if you want a planet that's sustainable for your kids, you'd at least want someone that acknowledges the problem. But to Trump it's a chinese hoax apparently. The democrats haven't done nearly enough to address the problem, but there are some steps that are better than doing nothing. Also regulating some crucial industries, like finance. Obama didn't do much to address the 2008 financial crisis, but he did impose regulations, which included creating regulatory institutions, Dodd-Frank etc. Again more can be done, but Republicans think just deregulate everything and let private tyranny take over.
×