While the choices this cycle may seem so stark, many in my Arab and Muslim community are asking how I can vote for someone who cannot commit to ending the genocide of my people? To a grieving community where so many of them barely survived the first nightmare Donald Trump presidency, but who are also now watching as their families and loved ones are eliminated using our tax dollars and bombs, the choice feels impossible.
I have agonized over this question every single day. Having this conversation right now feels like talking about politics at a funeral. The urgency and complexity is even more intense since early voting started in Georgia, a key swing state. So today, I once again find myself propelled by a grief so overwhelming it has made breathing, let alone making decisions, impossible some days.
Voting this year carries a heavier weight, as it feels like choosing between survival and surrender. Please know this is not fear-mongering. It is a reality. Organizing around Palestine is difficult already with unprecedented efforts to silence and punish advocates. I don’t believe there’s anything worse than genocide. But the reality is a second Trump presidency would ensure continued disaster for our community and far too many other allied communities as well.
To be clear, the DNC tried and succeeded in silencing her.
I mean, you are reading a Rolling Stone article written by her.
Not that I agree with the DNC’s point of view here, but it’s not like they cut out her tongue.
She’s a Georgia State Representative. She should have been allowed to speak at the party she helps represent.
Getting an article out there and getting time on stage with the party that you are literally an elected representative of, are quite, quite different things. I watched interviews with Ruwa before and after this happened on Zeteo.
How this campaign has been run; it has show Arab and Muslim voters that they are second, maybe even third or fourth class members of the Democratic party.
They and all marginalized people are more the Eloi than actual humans to the DNC
Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Rolling Stone:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone’s opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication’s capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
