American Politics

[SubCmdr]

The current Article 2 leader of the Dis United States of America tells another lie.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/trum...-reserves.html

"Trump said the Venezuela deal should bring down prices at the pump. " - he lies!

Venezuelan oil can be refined into gasoline, but it is significantly more expensive and complex to process than lighter crudes.

Total production and refining costs can reach $65 $80 per barrel (or higher, per some estimates), making it unprofitable at current global oil prices unless sold at a $12 $20 discount compared to benchmarks like Brent.

It does not naturally yield a high share of gasoline; significant processing is required to convert the heavy fractions into high-value products.

Facts are a wonderful thing when used correctly.

[Axel Heyst]

A BM recently conflated the utilization of peacekeeping troops as were consigned by President Clinton (the USA & NATO) and Russia after a peace agreement was signed by the combatants in the Serbia / Yugoslavia war and the possible use of combat troops in the present, ongoing Iran War. There is a big difference. The Yugoslavian civil war ended after Clinton bombed Serbian military installations and civilian infrastructure. Although Serbia posed no threat to the USA or NATO. President Clinton used overwhelming air power alone to end that war.

In the Iran War American superior airpower has decimated Iran's military, destroyed its Uranium enrichment facilities, and killed the top 2 echelons of the Iranian regime including the Ayatollah otherwise known as the Supreme Leader. The remaining IRCG leadership still refuses to surrender. The war is not over! But rather than use American combat troops to achieve victory, President Trump has instead successfully imposed a naval blockade surrounding Iran in the Persian gulf. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/navy...92a74fa7d6b20. The Headline reads: "USA Navy blockade slashes Iran oil exports as Trump administration shifts to economic warfare". In addition, President Trump has imposed and Economic blockade named "Economic the-Day" to force the regime to capitulate. https://nypost.com/2026/08/19/us-new...on-ever-taken/.

It is now obvious that the hard core will hold out until they are removed from power. The 2-fold strategy now in-place is designed to create a situation on the ground that induces a revolt within the power structure of the IRCG. It remains to be seen if this siege strategy will work. Many including myself think the strategy eventually will work. But the point is, until it does, nobody in the US administration is advocating the use of combat troops in Iran. But if / when the Iranian Regime does agree to peace terms, American personal will most definitely be sent into Iran, specifically to inspect and monitor all of Iran's nuclear facilities and collect the Uranium dust.

So that there is no further confusion on the difference between Combat troops and Peacekeeping troops I include the following core principles:

"Core Principles Differentiating Peacekeeping and Combat Engagements.

The core principles that differentiate peacekeeping from combat engagements primarily revolve around objectives, rules of engagement, and operational conditions. These distinctions influence decision-making and the application of force in each context.

In peacekeeping missions, principles emphasize neutrality, consent, and the protection of civilians without aggressive intent. The rules of engagement for peacekeeping roles restrict use of force to self-defense or defending mandate-mandated populations.

Conversely, combat roles are driven by offensive objectives that involve defeating enemy forces. The principles prioritize mission success, where decisions to use force can be immediate and more aggressive based on battlefield developments.

Key differences can be summarized as:

Peacekeeping focuses on stabilization and protection with restrictive rules of engagement.

Combat roles involve proactive engagement with more permissive rules to achieve military objectives.

Ethical considerations and legal frameworks guide peacekeepers to minimize harm, contrasting with combat roles' emphasis on decisive action.

These core principles fundamentally shape the manner and scope of engagement in peaceful versus combat military operations.

Rules of Engagement for Peacekeeping Operations.

In peacekeeping operations, rules of engagement (ROE) are guidelines that specify how military personnel can interact with civilians, local authorities, and combatants. These rules aim to maintain peace, ensure safety, and prevent escalation. They emphasize restraint and proportional responses to threats.

Key components of ROE for peacekeeping include the obligation to minimize harm and prioritize non-violent resolution. Personnel are typically authorized to use force only when necessary for self-defense or to protect civilians from imminent danger. Specific circumstances and legal frameworks often shape these rules.

Engage only when there's a direct threat to personnel or civilians.

Use non-lethal methods whenever possible.

Confirm the identity of individuals before taking action.

Report and document all use-of-force incidents for accountability.

These rules are designed to foster neutrality and protect the credibility of peacekeeping missions. They differ significantly from combat roles by underscoring restraint, respecting human rights, and avoiding unnecessary conflict escalation.

Rules of Engagement for Combat Roles.

Rules of engagement for combat roles are strict and clearly defined to ensure military effectiveness and adherence to international law. They specify when and how force can be used, emphasizing the protection of civilians and minimizing unnecessary harm.

In combat roles, these rules are generally more permissive to allow forceful response to threats and hostile actions. Troops are authorized to neutralize敌 threats, including using deadly force if necessary, within the scope of national and international regulations. The rules are designed to provide operational flexibility while maintaining ethical standards.

Decision-making in combat is often rapid, requiring troops to evaluate situations quickly under pressure. Clear protocols guide actions, but ambiguous or complex scenarios can challenge adherence to rules of engagement. Proper training ensures troops understand their authority and responsibilities in high-stakes environments.

Comparing Decision-Making Processes in Peacekeeping vs Combat Roles.

Decision-making processes in peacekeeping and combat roles differ significantly due to their distinct operational contexts. In peacekeeping, decisions often involve careful analysis of rules of engagement for peacekeeping vs combat roles, prioritizing restraint and conflict prevention. Commanders must weigh diplomatic considerations, the potential consequences of force, and the need to maintain neutrality, often operating with strict guidelines that emphasize peace preservation.

Conversely, combat roles require rapid, instinctive decision-making driven by immediate threat assessments. Commanders and troops rely on extensive training and situational awareness to determine the necessity of force. The focus is on achieving military objectives swiftly while adhering to the rules of engagement for combat roles, which permit a broader scope of action in hostile environments.

Overall, while peacekeeping decision-making emphasizes restraint and diplomatic judgment, combat decision-making hinges on swift, decisive actions based on real-time threat analysis. Both processes are vital to operational success but are shaped by the differing rules of engagement for peacekeeping vs combat roles.

Training and Preparedness for Applying Rules of Engagement.

Training and preparedness for applying rules of engagement differ significantly between peacekeeping and combat roles. Peacekeeping forces focus on cultural sensitivity, legal frameworks, and conflict de-escalation techniques, which are integral to their operational readiness.

In contrast, combat troops emphasize intense combat simulations, threat recognition, and quick decision-making under fire. Such training ensures they can respond decisively within the rules of engagement outlined for high-intensity conflicts.

Simulation exercises and scenario-based learning are vital for both roles. Peacekeepers often engage in mock negotiations and peacebuilding tasks, whereas combat units practice live-fire drills and rapid response scenarios. Both approaches enhance the ability to adapt rules of engagement to dynamic situations.

Cultural and legal awareness training is increasingly emphasized, particularly for peacekeeping personnel. Understanding international laws, rules of engagement, and the local context reduces risks of violations, ensuring operational legality and ethical conduct.

Differences in training focus for peacekeepers and combat troops.

Training focus for peacekeepers and combat troops markedly differs due to their distinct operational mandates. Peacekeeping training emphasizes conflict management, cultural sensitivity, and adherence to legal frameworks such as Rules of Engagement for peacekeeping roles. It prepares personnel to interact with diverse populations peacefully and avoid escalation. Conversely, combat troop training prioritizes offensive and defensive skills, survivability, and rapid decision-making under intense conditions. This training builds resilience and tactical proficiency aligned with combat scenarios.

While peacekeepers are trained to de-escalate tensions and protect civilians, combat troops focus on engaging adversaries effectively. The training modules for peacekeepers often include conflict resolution, human rights awareness, and understanding of international legal standards. For combat roles, instruction centers on weapon handling, combat tactics, and DOMINANT operational strategies. These differences reflect the need for peacekeepers to operate within complex socio-political environments, whereas combat troops train for direct engagement. Consequently, the emphasis on specific skills ensures each group is equipped to fulfill their roles responsibly and effectively.

Simulation exercises and scenario-based learning are integral components of training programs for both peacekeeping and combat roles. These methods provide realistic, controlled environments for personnel to apply their rules of engagement in situations mirroring actual operations. By replicating complex scenarios, soldiers learn to make swift, informed decisions while adhering to legal and ethical standards.

Such exercises foster critical thinking and help troops understand the nuances of different operational contexts. For peacekeepers, scenarios often emphasize conflict de-escalation, cultural sensitivity, and restraint within the rules of engagement. Conversely, combat training focuses on quick, decisive action under pressure. The scenario-based approach ensures that soldiers internalize appropriate responses to unpredictable circumstances, reducing the likelihood of violations or misjudgments.

Additionally, simulation exercises enhance coordination, communication, and adaptability among team members. Regular scenario-based learning ensures ongoing proficiency and awareness of evolving rules of engagement. Overall, these training methods are vital for preparing military personnel to execute their roles responsibly and effectively in diverse operational settings. ".

[Spidy]

Friday, Aug. 21, may go down in history as Canada's Liberation Day. It was the day America came for Canada ...and Canada said NO! .

It was a decision made, seemingly, on the spur of the moment, but the deep history of this country paved the way for this one critical gesture a historic no.
...

While the decision to tough it out is ironically Canadian, Mr. Carneys gesture will resonate far beyond Canadas borders. A gray banker and not just any banker but one of the leading bankers in the world has stood up and said that theres more to life than a little bit of money. The power of that recognition alone, at this moment in history, cannot be overstated. Mr. Trumps world, a world of transaction and submission, is not the only world we all have to live in. By Stephen Marche https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/23/w...mp-carney.html

"But Mr. Carney did not simply reject a trade offer on Friday. He was openly defiant of the new breed of American aggression. We will not allow any nation to determine our future, he said.

The American president clearly did not know whom he was dealing with. He is following in the grand tradition of American leaders starting wars with people they don't understand, then wondering what went wrong.

Viva Canada's Liberation Day?

[Elvis 2008]

I swear to God if Trump wants something done, he should just come out against it. New ballroom for the White House? I oppose it. Peace in the middle east? No way that would work. Climate change? Totally real. Oil pipelines? Totally opposed.

The latest from Doomberg is in:

For nearly two years, we have chronicled for our readers one of the unlikeliest political transformations of high consequence in the modern era: Canadian president Carney's metamorphic shift from stout climate-change warrior to the best friend the hydrocarbon industry has ever had. This particular drama looks set for its wildly unnatural final act. With all the pieces now in place, the trump cards will soon be revealed, and global energy flows are about to shift in ways few thought possible.

Flows of Canadian energy—especially discounted barrels of heavy crude from Western Canada—are a central pillar of US energy dominance. These flows have become all the more important since the war against Iran went kinetic. Take away Western Canadian Select oil from the US refining system, and Trump's ability to keep a lid on global fuel prices all but evaporates.

"Canada fuels American growth: supplying 99% of their natural gas imports, 85% of electricity imports, and 60% of crude oil imports. I don't think they want us to stop sending it. "

Buttressing Carney's optionality is a predictable burst in his popularity, and some polls put his approval rating north of 60%, rarefied air for the current slate of Western political leaders—Trump included. In essence, the prime minister could propose just about anything at the moment and his citizens would rally behind the cause:

Has there ever been a better time to unstick Alberta's energy? Won't pesky concerns like Indigenous rights, environmental-impact studies, and even climate change itself be brushed aside in the mad, patriotic rush to approve major midstream projects? Who could be opposed to new "liberty pipelines" moving black gold to both oceans? Can we interest anyone in a Sir John A. Macdonald Molecular Highway? What are you, pro-Trump or something?

End of link. Yes, there is no doubt that the best way for Trump to get the leftists to move on a matter is to come out against it.

2026, the year of the Canadian oil pipeline. Or is it liberty pipeline?

[SubCmdr]

The conflict in Iran, no matter how you define it will not be won without boots on the ground. Never in the history of mankind has a conflict been won without ground solders unless the enemy gives up under siege.

Are you saying the Dis United States of America has the power to cut all vital supplies to Iran until they surrender unconditionally?

Thank you for proving my point!

On June 12, NATO forces moved into Kosovo from Macedonia. On the same day, Russian troops arrived in Pristina, Kosovo's capital, resulting in a joint occupation.

Ground troops ultimately were needed to bring the conflict to a successful end.

[Axel Heyst]

"NATO begins bombing Serbia, March 24,1999!

Led by the United States, warplanes from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on this day in 1999 began a bombing campaign against Serbian military targets in the former Yugoslavia. The air raids, President Bill Clinton said, were aimed at halting widespread evidence of urban cleansing the worst such outbreak in Europe since World War II being perpetrated by Serbian forces against ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. They ended after 10 weeks when the Serbians agreed to a peace accord that called for the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo and their replacement by NATO peacekeeping troops.

The NATO bombing campaign marked the second major combat operation in the alliance's history, after the one it launched in 1995 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The attacks also marked first time that NATO had used military force without the prior approval of the United Nations Security Council. (China and Russia let it be known that they would exercise their veto powers in the council, blocking its potential sanctioning of the operation.).

The campaign involved some 1,000 aircraft operating from air bases in Italy and Germany, as well as the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an aircraft carrier stationed in the Adriatic Sea. NATO aircraft flew more than 38,000 combat missions during the conflict. In addition, cruise missiles were fired from American ships and submarines.

Operation Allied Force predominantly used a large-scale air campaign to destroy Yugoslav military infrastructure from high altitudes. After the third day of aerial bombing, NATO had destroyed almost all of its strategic military targets in Yugoslavia. Despite this, the Yugoslav army continued to function and to attack Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) insurgents inside Kosovo, mostly in the regions of Northern and Southwest Kosovo. NATO bombed strategic economic and societal targets, such as bridges, military facilities, official government facilities, and factories, using long-range cruise missiles to hit heavily defended targets, such as strategic installations in Belgrade and Pristina. The NATO air forces also targeted infrastructure, such as power plants (using the BLU-114/ be "Soft-Bomb" water-processing plants and the state-owned broadcaster. The Dutch foreign minister Jozias van Aartsen said that the strikes on Yugoslavia should be such as to weaken their military capabilities and prevent further humanitarian atrocities. [.

Save for two USA Pilots who were killed in a training mission in Albania, no NATO personnel lost their lives during the 78-day assault. There were, however, some miscalculated bombings that led to the deaths of Kosovar Albanian refugees and Serbian civilians. On May 7, five USA Precision bombs programmed with coordinates provided by the CIA struck the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the Serbian capital, killing three Chinese journalists and triggering a diplomatic row between Beijing and Washington.

On June 12, NATO forces moved into Kosovo from Macedonia. On the same day, Russian troops arrived in Pristina, Kosovo's capital, resulting in a joint occupation. Despite the peacekeeping troops, the returning Kosovar Albanians retaliated against the Serbian minority, forcing many of them to flee to Serbia.

In October 2000, Slobodan Milosević, the Serbian leader, was ousted from power by a popular revolution. He was replaced by Vojislav Kostunica, a moderate Serbian nationalist who promised to reintegrate Serbia into Europe. Milosević died in prison in the Netherlands on March 11,2006, during his trial for crimes against humanity and genocide. Because of his death, the court did not return a verdict. "

[KeviKev68]

The blockade is working. Hard times are here for the Persian people and there are divisions forming within the Iranian leadership between the civilians and the IRCG. Will it be enough to create a "palace coup" within the IRCG remains to be seen.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6404082665112

The Iranians have been under sanctions for years. This will not work as they can wait Trump out for 2 more years. Now, that Trump has weakened our nation and military, China can and will step in get the Iranians through this war-of-choice not necessity.

You know things are bad when can't properly care for Marines and Navy on battleship. Not a good look to moldy cold showers and gray meat. It's complete incompetence.

[SubCmdr]

Hard times are here for the Persian people and there are divisions forming within the Iranian leadership between the civilians and the IRCG.

Will the US Support (boots on the ground) or initiate (CIA) armed revolution in Iran?

[Axel Heyst]

The blockade is working. Hard times are here for the Persian people and there are divisions forming within the Iranian leadership between the civilians and the IRCG. Will it be enough to create a "palace coup" within the IRCG remains to be seen.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6404082665112

[Sirioja]

I hate to sound like a little kid but Trump started all of this nonsense. Did Barack Obama cry when Trump and his racist followers were saying that he wasn't born American? Did you ever hear of Obama derangement syndrome? Of course not, Trump nut huggers called Obama names for years.

Donald Trump is the last person to complain about a lack of civility. Now, he has issues with Canada? He's not wrapped to tight.

Senile, schizophrene, megaloman, dangerous Trump gives the worst ever image of USA and he wants to compare to JF Kennedy who gave the best image, even he was far to be perfect. And stupid Trump put messe in our world.

[EihTooms]

It's embarrassing to see you repeat the same old lies time after time.

Muslim community leaders strongly supported Kamala, just like Israel supported President Trump. Another thing, stop blaming Muslims when Latinos and Afro-Americans stopped voting for the Democrats and largest source of votes for Trump was the Caucasian vote. It's pretty funny that you believe that the same states that President Trump won by proposing a Muslim ban in 2016 would have voted for him in 2024. Or do you think the Muslim voters looked at Israel and thought that they wanted to vote for the candidate favored by Israel?

I dislike your suggestion that Muslims are sheep that simply votes as a Islamic lobbyists tells them to do. They can think for themselves and make their own decisions.

Kamala lost votes among Americans that supports Israel because she appeared to be anti-Israel and she most certainly lost votes among devoted Muslims because of the Democrats position regarding HBTQ and more specifically trans issues.

Be honest now, how would the election have ended if we exclude Muslim voters? Who would have won the election?.

The 2024 Election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_U...ntial_election

The A. I. Overviews:

Michigan

The number of registered muslims in michigan +4 There is no official registry of religious affiliation in the United States, but demographers and advocacy groups estimate Michigan's Muslim population is approximately 240,000 to 242,000 people (about 2.4% of the state's total population). Additionally, organizations like Emgage estimate there are over 200,000 Muslim American voters in the state.Population Estimates and ContextTotal Population: Estimates place the total Muslim count around 241,828 according to data tracked by the World Population Review.

Voter Numbers: Advocacy groups report more than 200,000 self-identified Muslim voters registered in Michigan.
..........
Michigan has the largest population of Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians in the United States, with more than 200,000 people. In the 2024 Democratic primary, mor...World Population ReviewMuslim Population by State 2026 - World Population ReviewAug 20, 2569 BE Muslim Population by Key Takeaways * Michigan has the largest Muslim population share of any U.S. state. * The Muslim population is estimated at approximately 235,000250,000....

In Michigan, Harris got 80,103 fewer votes than Trump. Meaning if only 40,052 of the estimated 200,000 Muslim voters in Michigan had not abandoned Harris due to their clearly stated animosity for the Biden Administration, Harris would have won Michigan's Electoral College Votes.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania is estimated to have between 170,000 and 400,000 registered Muslim voters, depending on the tracking organization and methodology used.

City & State Pennsylvania
+1
The conservative estimate: A comprehensive demographic report tracked approximately 170,000 registered Muslim voters in the state, noting that roughly 80% reside in the eastern region (primarily across Philadelphia, Chester, Bucks, Lehigh, and Montgomery counties).
The high estimate: Political advocacy and mobilization networks estimate the number of registered Muslim voters could be as high as 400,000.

Facebook
NEWSMAX
Historical Electoral Impact
Regardless of the exact baseline registration numbers, the active turnout of Muslim voters in Pennsylvania has consistently played a decisive role in tight elections. During the 2020 presidential election, more than 125,000 Muslim voters cast ballots in Pennsylvaniaa total that exceeded the state's narrow 81,000-vote margin of victory.

In Pennsylvania, Harris got 120,266 fewer votes than Trump. Meaning if only 60,134 of the (lowest) estimated 170,000 Muslim voters in Pennsylvania had not abandoned Harris due to their clearly stated animosity for the Biden Administration, Harris would have won Pennsylvania's Electoral College Votes.

Drum roll, please.

Wisconsin

Muslim voters make up roughly 1.0% to 1.2% of the total electorate in Wisconsin, representing an estimated base of around 35,000 registered voters out of a broader state Muslim population of nearly 70,000 residents.
..........
Registered Voters: Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Action estimate about 35,000 registered Muslim voters in the state.Electorate Share: Roughly 1.0% to 1.2% of total eligible voters.Community EngagementHigh Turnout: Regional organizations like the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance note that local Muslim populations display high registration rates and active community mobilization during election cycles.

Swing State Impact: Because overall statewide margins in Wisconsin are historically razor-thin, the focused block of Muslim voters carries significant weight in close elections.

In Wisconsin, Harris got 29,397 fewer votes than Trump. Meaning if only 14,699 of the estimated 35,000 Muslim voters in Wisconsin had not abandoned Harris due to their clearly stated animosity for the Biden Administration, Harris would have won Wisconsin's Electoral College Votes and the 2024 presidential election to go along with the House seats the Dems took from Repubs and no Blue state Senate seat losses at all.

Now, let's see your links and math for how big moves by Latinos and Black people voters in those only three swing states that mattered were even needed to hand those decisive Electoral College Votes to Trump as long as those fractions of campaign targeted Muslims on that one critical issue for them got there first. No Latinos or Black voters abandoning Harris or any other Dems in any typically Blue states, in the House of Representatives or the Senate in significant enough numbers on any favorite Mainstream Media "campaign issue" flipped a Blue state to Trump or gave him one "winning" EC Vote, won a single additional House seat for Repubs rather than losing them or won a Blue state Senate seat for a Repub.

Hurry! Don't embarrass yourself by totally failing to post a shred of substantiation for anything you have asserted much longer than you have already.

[SubCmdr]

Let's watch and see how the trade war goes with Canada. The Article 2 leader and his Treasury Lap Dog are out of their league dealing with the Canadian Prime Minister. Only me and my fellow citizens who are poor like me will suffer. Natural Gas prices are already up. Canada can cut electricity to the Dis United States of America. Canada exports 4 million barrels a day of crude oil to the Dis United States of America. Watch what happens to gasoline prices in the Dis United States of America if they decide to cut it off.

[KeviKev68]

Look at what you're writing, you're consumed by hatred. You can't even write a sentence without using derogatory language. You're unable to see things objectively or even consider other people's POV, you're not able to even refrain from using derogatory language which makes you seem unhinged and childish.

No one, absolutely no one would say that USA was winning this war if the roles were reversed. It's pretty obvious that the people that used to govern Iran lost, they lost their lives. The Iranian economy sure as hell isn't winning. Why do you believe the Iranian president wants to move past this situation and make a deal? Most probably because Iran is losing, and they keep on losing every day that this situation goes on.

You're showing clear signs of Trump Derangement Syndrome, try to grow up and realize that not everything is so extremely black and white.

You're attacking people for being centrists, if someone doesn't hate Trump you call them "Trump nut huggers". How is that reasonable?.

I hate to sound like a little kid but Trump started all of this nonsense. Did Barack Obama cry when Trump and his racist followers were saying that he wasn't born American? Did you ever hear of Obama derangement syndrome? Of course not, Trump nut huggers called Obama names for years.

Donald Trump is the last person to complain about a lack of civility. Now, he has issues with Canada? He's not wrapped to tight.

[ShooBree]

The critical issue among the Muslim Community in the 2024 election was Gaza. The outsized (compared to less determinative states and swing states) Muslim Community voters in MI, PA and WI were campaign targeted on that issue. I already cited the easy math on that; if just half of the Muslims residing in those states voted and only about half of them didn't vote for Harris or voted for someone else in accordance with the urging of the most highly mobilized Muslim Community leaders, that was enough votes to squeak out the less than 0. 72 percentage point swing in those states that gave Trump the election win. And without that swing in those states, he would not have won.

But that doesn't mean non Muslims in those states were immune to or ignored the targeted campaign pitch. It is reasonable to assume that issue was determinative for many non Muslims as well, at the very least friends and neighbors of Muslims for whom that was a critical issue. Many of them might well have stayed home or abandoned their usual Dem vote as well..

It's embarrassing to see you repeat the same old lies time after time.

Muslim community leaders strongly supported Kamala, just like Israel supported President Trump. Another thing, stop blaming Muslims when Latinos and Afro-Americans stopped voting for the Democrats and largest source of votes for Trump was the Caucasian vote. It's pretty funny that you believe that the same states that President Trump won by proposing a Muslim ban in 2016 would have voted for him in 2024. Or do you think the Muslim voters looked at Israel and thought that they wanted to vote for the candidate favored by Israel?

I dislike your suggestion that Muslims are sheep that simply votes as a Islamic lobbyists tells them to do. They can think for themselves and make their own decisions.

Kamala lost votes among Americans that supports Israel because she appeared to be anti-Israel and she most certainly lost votes among devoted Muslims because of the Democrats position regarding HBTQ and more specifically trans issues.

Be honest now, how would the election have ended if we exclude Muslim voters? Who would have won the election?

According to AI we would have seen President Trump win even bigger if we exclude Muslim voters.

You have failed to present the scenario where Trump would have lost Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As I've said before, there are barely any Muslims in Wisconsin. Your math isn't mathing, you haven't even presented the numbers behind a Kamala win in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

But hey, there's nothing new that left-wing parties are dependent on importing voters from deeply Islamism countries without human rights and deeply rooted Anti-American and Anti-Semitic sentiment. We have already seen how that turned out in Europa.

[EihTooms]

That's incorrect and you have failed to produce any facts or stats that shows different.

A simple fact; you don't know how certain religious groups voted.

Anyways, you're trying to make the point that Muslims are deciding who the President of America will be and that the Democrats are dependent on Muslims to win any presidential election.

According to you the Democrats is a Muslim party.

That is hilarious. You should write a book.

The critical issue among the Muslim Community in the 2024 election was Gaza. The outsized (compared to less determinative states and swing states) Muslim Community voters in MI, PA and WI were campaign targeted on that issue. I already cited the easy math on that; if just half of the Muslims residing in those states voted and only about half of them didn't vote for Harris or voted for someone else in accordance with the urging of the most highly mobilized Muslim Community leaders, that was enough votes to squeak out the less than 0. 72 percentage point swing in those states that gave Trump the election win. And without that swing in those states, he would not have won.

But that doesn't mean non Muslims in those states were immune to or ignored the targeted campaign pitch. It is reasonable to assume that issue was determinative for many non Muslims as well, at the very least friends and neighbors of Muslims for whom that was a critical issue. Many of them might well have stayed home or abandoned their usual Dem vote as well.

But that is immaterial to the point that there is no evidence for the claim that Trump squeaked out the critical Electoral College votes that put him back in the White House because of the economy that was roaring along far better than it did under Trump or any other Republican president or because the rate of inflation and the price of gas had been steadily and dramatically declining for more than two years or because crime rates had declined to decades long lows under Biden after hitting decades long record highs under Trump or because America was embroiled in exactly zero wars anywhere on the planet or because the deficit was already being reduced by hundreds of billions of dollars, all true conditions in 2024, when the one issue that squeaked out the EC votes for Trump in the only 3 swing states that put him over that knife's edge to a win and without which he would not have won was Gaza, which just happened to be the most critical issue for the Muslim Community.

Either you can connect those couple of gigantic dots or you can't. Apparently, you can't.