Mayor of only Muslim-run city in US endorses Trump for election
Photo: Life Middle East - Mohammed Alragawi
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Amer Ghalib, who leads city in battleground state of Michigan, says the Republican is the ‘right choice’, despite disagreements. The mayor of the only city in the United States with an all-Muslim government has endorsed former President Donald Trump for November’s presidential election.Amer Ghalib, who leads the city of Hamtramck in the crucial battleground state of Michigan, said on Sunday that the Republican candidate is a “man of principles” and “the right choice”, despite their disagreements on some issues.
“President Trump and I may not agree on everything, but I know he is a man of principles,” Ghalib said. “Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time.
“Now, let the Caravan begin its journey,” Ghalib added. “This is just the starting point.” Trump reposted Ghalib’s endorsement on his Truth Social platform shortly after the announcement.
Hamtramck, which has a population of about 28,000 people, made headlines in 2021 when it became the first US city to elect an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor.
Ghalib, who immigrated to the US from Yemen when he was 17, offered his support to Trump a little less than a week after meeting the Republican candidate before a town hall in the Michigan city of Flint. Ghalib told The Detroit News last week that the pair had discussed the concerns of Arab and Muslim Americans and that Trump had requested his endorsement.
Michigan is one of seven key swing states expected to decide the outcome of November’s contest between Trump and his Democratic Party rival, Vice President Kamala Harris. Opinion polls suggest a tight race between Trump and Harris both nationally and in battlegrounds such as Michigan.
In the most recent average of polls compiled by The New York Times, Harris leads Trump in Michigan by 50 percent to 47 percent.Trump won Michigan in the 2016 election against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, becoming the first Republican to prevail in the state since George HW Bush in 1988. President Joe Biden flipped the state back to the Democrats in 2020, beating Trump by a margin of about 150,000 votes.
Muslim-American anger over the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza has become a concern for Democrats as they face razor-thin races in the battleground states.
In a poll released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in August, just 12 percent of Muslim voters in Michigan expressed support for Harris, with 18 percent backing Trump and 40 percent supporting the Green Party’s Jill Stein.
Tags
Who is online
312 visitors
Amer Ghalib, who leads city in battleground state of Michigan, says the Republican is the ‘right choice’, despite disagreements. The mayor of the only city in the United States with an all-Muslim government has endorsed former President Donald Trump for November’s presidential election. Amer Ghalib, who leads the city of Hamtramck in the crucial battleground state of Michigan, said on Sunday that the Republican candidate is a “man of principles” and “the right choice”, despite their disagreements on some issues.
Trump reposted Ghalib’s endorsement on his Truth Social platform shortly after the announcement.
Will he be singing the same tune when Trump throws him out of the country?
... for looking like an illegal.
When I first started to vote, there was an election where i didn't like either of the candidates and was thinking of not voting. Someone older and wiser pointed out that the smarter thing to do in a situation like that is to vote-- for the candidate that was "the least worst"!
Not sure what an illegal looks like. What do you see?
somebody a few shades off white on the maga color wheel ...
What race do you call that?
To the racist mind there are whites and non whites, and thats all. Two races.
Why would he do that?
I've used that "the least worst" phrase myself to describe my feelings about this election.
I was educated in Canada.
How, in your reality, does America win?
No matter what you do, one of these two will be elected PotUS. So how, precisely, does abstaining from voting for the better candidate make America win?
Then I suggest you stop making your emotive claim that those who exercise their vote for PotUS are in some way engaging in a stupid or irresponsible act.
Okay.
You keep insulting patriots who are using their vote to pick the individual they feel is best to be PotUS and I will continue to challenge you to back up your insult with an actual argument.
I did not flag your comment, maybe someone else did and I don't know who or why. If I had flagged it the system would have blocked me from posting this reply. I tried to send you a PN.
There is no difference.
If Trump is worse than Harris then Harris is better than Trump.
If A < B then B > A.
If Trump is worse than Harris then Harris is better than Trump.
If A < B then B > A.
So instead you will leave it up to others to determine the next PotUS.
Some people are voting for Harris because she is the least worst for the nation.
Others are voting for Harris because of her positives compared to Trump.
Others (like me) are voting for Harris-Walz for BOTH reasons.
You, however, claim that you will not vote at all and you think that by not voting this will somehow cause the parties to produce better candidates. Even though voting for third parties and abstaining have not accomplished that for well over a century now.
You have claimed (I do not believe you) that you will not vote for Harris or Trump. If that is the case then you are letting others determine who is the next president.
History does NOT show that voting for the lesser of two is the reason we have poor candidates. You are simply declaring that without any facts to support your declaration.
The problem is more likely that we do not hold our politicians accountable. People vote by name-recognition, party-affiliation, single-issue, etc. They also believe too many of the lies by politicians. When two candidates are running, abstaining from voting for one of them accomplishes nothing. Even if 99% of the population followed your ridiculous theory, all that would happen is that the remaining 1% would decide the election.
Politicians know this and that is what allows them to behave poorly and remain in power.
I have outlined what is required to break this trend. It is not easy. It has not been done in over 150 years. We need a viable third party. And this is what is required to achieve that:
Until we have a viable third party, you and others voting third party or abstaining will accomplish the same thing it has in the past 150 years: nothing. The Libertarian party has been around for over 50 years and only minor, local politicians have been elected as Libertarians.
Merely voting third party on election day as you suggest will continue to accomplish nothing. Your logic is profoundly flawed. By refusing to vote for a viable candidate, you are not contributing anything useful and letting others decide the presidency.
Strawman. I did not argue that a third party vote does not get counted. I argued that it demonstrably (150 years now) will not make any difference in who is elected PotUS (except as a spoiler in a close election).
Correct, that will not fix the problem of having poor politicians. And I have not argued that it will. What it will do, however, is deal with the problem at hand. Right now the problem at hand is that Trump is entirely unfit and there is a way to fix that problem.
I have outlined what is required to start fixing the problem of having poor choices. That boils down to competition (at least one viable third party) so that voters are not constantly flipping between D and R or voting third party in a pathetic hope that this will fix the problem sometime ... somehow — naive wishful thinking.
To build a viable third party that one can vote for and not have their vote be counted and then accomplish nothing we need:
It can be so simple. Vote for whoever you want for whatever reasons you see fit. I may or may not agree with your choice or your reasons but you don't need to justify them to me.
Note how this started:
You are deflecting from my argument since you obviously cannot counter it.
Nothing is accomplished by merely voting third party on election day. To accomplish something by voting third party we need to first build a viable third party. That requires:
You have no rebuttal, just deflection.
I disagree. Biden was too old and his ability to communicate had dropped precipitously.
In contrast to Trump, Harris is presidential, youthful (perfect age), articulate, energetic, positive, intelligent, and will use the power of the presidency for the good of the nation, not her own good as Trump clearly will do.
There are good reasons to vote for Harris-Walz. On top of personal qualities, I support an agenda that embraces in a practical sense renewable energy and responsible climate change policies. I support helping ambitious children with the right attitude and aptitude to get a quality education that enables them to realistically acquire a higher education and contribute to the GDP with their professional efforts. Even though the team will likely put favor a more liberal agenda than my liking, they represent a normal presidential team such as we have had in the past. Trump, in contrast, is entirely unfit for office.
Yea, I know
It does seem counterintuitive but it is their choice and they are welcome to it. It seems some voting third party are doing it to send a message for future elections, can't bring themselves to vote for either person as a "they are not the other guy" vote or just feel they are compromising their integrity if they don't feel they are voting for the best candidate,
And they are welcome to do that also without me trying to convince them of anything or without having them think they need to convince me of anything.
Seems like a difference of opinion being rehashed with no new ground being covered or minds being changed.
MAGA nitwits have convinced themselves that Harris is dumb. This mostly originated on social media. Now that reality has disproven them they keep flailing away.
Wow, she sounds great. I strongly suggest you vote for her.
I am partial to blue cheese, especially if there are buffalo wings involved.
What Harris or the Ds in general stated about Biden is irrelevant. I was not reporting on their statements, I made my statement about Biden.
Anyone who watched her last interview, with one of her cheerleaders no less, understands she lacks the ability to translate hr thoughts into coherent words. And that's about the nicest thing that can be said about her intellect.
It is irrelevant to my comment. I even explained this to you in my post:
It's absolutely relevant, Biden was the Democrat nominee that received over 14 million votes and low and behold Harris is now the nominee without getting a single vote in a primary, ever. The Democrats have thrown democracy out the window.
I would agree.
Try reading what people write before commenting. You are totally off base.
WTF are you talking about now? If you are replying to someone, at least try to make a comment that is relevant to what was written.
Here, this is what I wrote:
I would think it would at least raise a red flag and make one question her credibility but I am sure she will get a pass with the but but but Trump says bigger lies group.
I am so sorry, I could swear you have used those words to describe Trump am I wrong about that?
(there I fixed it for you)
You replied to my comment with a non-sequitur.
Read what people write and respond accordingly.
I personally have not called Trump a threat to Democracy. So you are wrong.
Relying upon resumed stereotypes instead of specifics causes one to get things wrong. If that is what you are doing, I suggest you toss the stereotype crap.
Your daily jive has gone way past tolerable.
You claim to be against both Trump and Harris (before it was Biden) but 95% of your negative comments are about the Democrat. Do you seriously believe everyone cant see what you are doing?/ ROFL.
Your're lucky all this nonsense is allowed here. I'd delete every comment you make about how you think everyone should vote third party.
I have a question about fossil fuel (gas) left in the ground never touched: Will it explode (massively) if never used? What happens to the 'build-up'?
Fossil fuels in raw form have little to no oxygen and are not under the kind of pressure that leads to combustion. They will simply remain in the Earth. Further, they are not building up, for all intents and purposes, given the building is done at a very slow pace. The current fossil fuels have been in the Earth for at least 50 million years.
You claimed that you will not vote for Harris or Trump. They are the only two viable candidates. If you vote for anyone else or if you abstain, you will accomplish nothing.
History does NOT show that voting for the lesser of two is the reason we have poor candidates. You are simply declaring that without any facts to support your declaration.
The problem is more likely that we do not hold our politicians accountable. People vote by name-recognition, party-affiliation, single-issue, etc. They also believe too many of the lies by politicians. When two candidates are running, abstaining from voting for one of them accomplishes nothing. Even if 99% of the population followed your ridiculous theory, all that would happen is that the remaining 1% would decide the election.
Politicians know this and that is what allows them to behave poorly and remain in power.
I have outlined what is required to break this trend. It is not easy. It has not been done in over 150 years. We need a viable third party. And this is what is required to achieve that:
Until we have a viable third party, you and others voting third party or abstaining will accomplish the same thing it has in the past 150 years: nothing. The Libertarian party has been around for over 50 years and only minor, local politicians have been elected as Libertarians.
Merely voting third party on election day as you suggest will continue to accomplish nothing. Your logic is profoundly flawed. By refusing to vote for a viable candidate, you are not contributing anything useful and letting others decide the presidency.
Now that is a "happy" planet Earth!
Thank you, TiG!
Michigan is one of seven key swing states expected to decide the outcome of November’s contest between Trump and his Democratic Party rival, Vice President Kamala Harris. Opinion polls suggest a tight race between Trump and Harris both nationally and in battlegrounds such as Michigan. In the most recent average of polls compiled by The New York Times, Harris leads Trump in Michigan by 50 percent to 47 percent.
Trump won Michigan in the 2016 election against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, becoming the first Republican to prevail in the state since George HW Bush in 1988. President Joe Biden flipped the state back to the Democrats in 2020, beating Trump by a margin of about 150,000 votes.
And now, it's anybody's guess.
In a poll released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in August, just 12 percent of Muslim voters in Michigan expressed support for Harris, with 18 percent backing Trump and 40 percent supporting the Green Party’s Jill Stein.
Hard to understand why Ghalib decided that he had to choose between two bad choices, although he could have gone to the choice the greatest number of his city's residents did, to Jill Stein of the Green Party, but then she's Jewish, eh?
Sounds like an attempted insurance policy. I used to see punk shows in Hamtramck in my teens. It was a rough area.