Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main reason was to give a f*** you to dems and they succeeded in doing that. See, the thing about f you is that it's typically an emotional response, not a logical one. You can't expect Arabs to put their emotions in a box considering what has been supported by Biden administration in Gaza, if Biden had been the candidate I wouldn't have bothered to vote because of the Gaza issue.

To say, "but Harris is not Biden" is a cop out, she is a part of the same administration. This election was a referendum on Biden and his disastrous policies over 4 years, no democratic candidate could have escaped the wrath.

Biden's legacy is shot and he will be regarded as one of the most inept presidents.

Signed - A democrat who voted for Harris.

Keep blaming Biden. If he was such a terrible politician, why did Kamala agree to be his VP?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the outcome that is most perplexing to me. The explanation being given by the talking heads is that they were unhappy with the Biden administrations support of Israel. But they obviously realize that a Trump administration would be just as supportive of Israel. I would assume that they would go with the candidate who belongs to a party that has a significant faction of people opposed to supporting Israel, which is non-existent in the Republican party. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

Many of the earlier posters have identified important motivations and I will add to those. Biden won Dearborn with 80 percent of the vote, so the city has normally been very Democratic. However, a significant number, perhaps a majority, of the Arabs in Dearborn have their roots in southern Lebanon. That is exactly the area that is being destroyed at the moment by Israel. Biden and Harris don't seem to be doing anything to stop the fighting. The administration's point person on the conflict, Amos Hochstein, is an Israeli citizen who served in the IDF. As such, there is considerable doubt that he is an honest broker as a negotiator in this conflict. In contrast, Trump's point man for Lebanon will be Tiffany Trump's father-in-law who is a Lebanese-American. He has been campaigning vigorously among Dearborn's Arabs and telling them that Trump will end the conflict. The result is that the voters in Dearborn were presented with only terrible choices: Trump, Harris, third-party, or not voting. The majority chose the terrible option that at least promises to end the fighting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the outcome that is most perplexing to me. The explanation being given by the talking heads is that they were unhappy with the Biden administrations support of Israel. But they obviously realize that a Trump administration would be just as supportive of Israel. I would assume that they would go with the candidate who belongs to a party that has a significant faction of people opposed to supporting Israel, which is non-existent in the Republican party. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

Nope. Good luck to their relatives in Gaza and Lebanon.

Harris and her surrogates couldn’t tell the difference between the community members who support peace and those who support war. That was all over TikTok.

Anonymous wrote:I think the main reason was to give a f*** you to dems and they succeeded in doing that. See, the thing about f you is that it's typically an emotional response, not a logical one. You can't expect Arabs to put their emotions in a box considering what has been supported by Biden administration in Gaza, if Biden had been the candidate I wouldn't have bothered to vote because of the Gaza issue.

To say, "but Harris is not Biden" is a cop out, she is a part of the same administration. This election was a referendum on Biden and his disastrous policies over 4 years, no democratic candidate could have escaped the wrath.

Biden's legacy is shot and he will be regarded as one of the most inept presidents.

Signed - A democrat who voted for Harris.

Anonymous wrote:That's the outcome that is most perplexing to me. The explanation being given by the talking heads is that they were unhappy with the Biden administrations support of Israel. But they obviously realize that a Trump administration would be just as supportive of Israel. I would assume that they would go with the candidate who belongs to a party that has a significant faction of people opposed to supporting Israel, which is non-existent in the Republican party. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the outcome that is most perplexing to me. The explanation being given by the talking heads is that they were unhappy with the Biden administrations support of Israel. But they obviously realize that a Trump administration would be just as supportive of Israel. I would assume that they would go with the candidate who belongs to a party that has a significant faction of people opposed to supporting Israel, which is non-existent in the Republican party. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

Nope. Good luck to their relatives in Gaza and Lebanon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will let Netanyahu do whatever he wants. From now through the next four years, the blood of every dead Gazan child, the death of every innocent Lebanese, will be on the hands of Dearborn Muslims.

Tell me, how did the Biden administration constrain Netanyahu?

For the millionth time, Biden couldn't do much during an election season when the guy he was running against was even more pro-Zionist.

Weak excuses.

Your position is basically "things can't get any worse, so burn it all down."

But, I assure you, things can get worse. No matter bad life gets, it can always get worse.

Giving in to reactionary fatalism is a costly mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will let Netanyahu do whatever he wants. From now through the next four years, the blood of every dead Gazan child, the death of every innocent Lebanese, will be on the hands of Dearborn Muslims.

Tell me, how did the Biden administration constrain Netanyahu?

For the millionth time, Biden couldn't do much during an election season when the guy he was running against was even more pro-Zionist.

Weak excuses.

Anonymous wrote:That's the outcome that is most perplexing to me. The explanation being given by the talking heads is that they were unhappy with the Biden administrations support of Israel. But they obviously realize that a Trump administration would be just as supportive of Israel. I would assume that they would go with the candidate who belongs to a party that has a significant faction of people opposed to supporting Israel, which is non-existent in the Republican party. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wanted what the Dems were selling. They got way too crazy.

True dat. People in Dearborn wanted what Trump was selling.