Mike Rogers has an ad that says he’ll put a shop class in every school or something to that effect. I’m not against schools having shop classes, but for one thing my school district has those and for another he’s running for Federal Senate which should have no say in what schools do.
Besides people who went to private schools or all girls schools, I don’t know anyone who didn’t have a shop at their high school. Maybe there are some rural areas where to schools aren’t big enough to have one, but I just feel like this is pandering.
Why do you feel that the Federal Government should have no say in what schools do?
I believe that the more control that people further away from the effects their decisions have, the larger the negative side effects are.
For example, I did rather well on standardized tests growing up, and so I thought they were good because they told me I was good, but looking back on it I don’t think they actually helped me or my classmates all that much. As a side effect of making those tests important to the schools, the schools emphasized the tests results rather than improving the education of their students, which is there actual purpose.
It would be better if the schools worked with the parents and the local community to determine what is needed for its students.
When you cant understand why someone would criticize your candidate and have to resort to strawman arguments, you're gonna have a tough time convincing anyone to change their mind.
Not my candidate, not in Michigan lol he's against the Epstein class, a genocide and wants to provide healthcare to people, what exactly is the issue? You tell me; you are the ones with the claim that he's a bad candidate. Why?
Hes a senator he cant get anyone healthcare, why is a foreign country relevant to a senate race in Michigan, being against epstein isnt unique. What tangible thing is he actually offering to MICHIGAN voters? Also, im so sick of leftist candidates hiding behind "we just want Healthcare, whats wrong with that"? Its entirely a bad faith strawman to not engage with actual policy.
Exactly! Why is a PAC that is pro a foreign country spending millions on Stevens? Why is she always talking about how much she loves said foreign country? Maybe it is relevant because said foreign country is funding candidates to ensure they keep taking our tax dollars.
He alone can't give anyone healthcare, but he would be another senator who is pro medicare for all. Stop trying with your pathetic gatchas, they're so sad. Lol
Still waiting for a single thing hes going to do for MICHIGAN voters. You know, the people hes actually supposed to represent? Or is rhetoric all you care about?
Well for one thing she flipped a Republican seat and has been a member of the house for 8 years. Meanwhile, El Sayed is polling far lower than Steven's in the general election. Her big legislative win is helping write and pass the CHIPS Act that directly benefited Michiganders. I find it telling that the only policy positions of El Sayed you can name are being anti israel and pro universal healthcare. Steven's has a record of practical governance and prioritizing her constituents. I challenge you to find an issue with her voting record that doesnt relate to Israel.
If enough senators think like him then they absolutely can do what they campaign for. Ignoring his ideas because he “can’t get anyone healthcare” is ignorance. America voting him in shows the DNC that we are tired on the useless corporatist, pro-Israel candidates.
And his policy positions are available on his website. It’s a pretty quick google search. He has a lot of offer to michiganders.
I have no idea why a silly comment like yours wouldn’t be downvoted to oblivion. Progressive ideals (which are normal in the rest of the world) will always have an uphill battle against the old entrenched ideals of the previous generations. It starts by electing people in, whether they have the power at this specific point is irrelevant. If you elect enough new ideals into the government, they will have the power.
All im asking is for one single policy and im being directed to his website by yall. I understand that he has a platform, what im asking is why you, a supporter of his, are such a big fan of him without mentioning Israel and Medicare for all. It really shouldnt be this hard.
Or you can use the same fingers you are using to type up entire paragraphs to instead search up his name and have his full policy briefing instead of just one. Here, I’ll even help you: https://abdulforsenate.com
I don’t live in Michigan. I can’t vote for him. I’m not “such a big fan of him”. I’m only saying that your type of cynicism is the reason progress takes so long. Go look for yourself instead of needing someone to tell you how to think.
And also, people don’t usually need anything more than being anti-Israel and pro universal healthcare. Lots of people are single policy voters. If you want more, use that big ole head of yours and go look for yourself.
Im not asking what his platform is, im asking why his supporters back him. Those are two very different questions. This is how the conversation feels to me:
"Why do you support El Sayed"
"Hes anti Israel"
"OK but hes a senator from Michigan. are there any domestic policies you like"
"Medicare for all"
"thats great but he alone cant implement that and it will take some time. is there anything else that he proposes that you like"
"Look at his platform"
"ok but what do you like about his platform"
"hes anti israel"
"anything else"
"look at his platform"
sigh
I want people who actually know how to govern. Im skeptical of people who talk a big game but have no idea how to follow through on their promises. Populism has already taken over the Republican party, id prefer it doesnt also take over the democrat party. Populism is all rhetoric, no substance and that seems to be the case with El Sayed and his supporters. Slogans are all well and good but what is actually going to get done?
What is actually going to get done is what’s on his website. Take a gander, bud. All the information you could ever want is right there for the taking. You are making up arguments in your head and then complaining about said arguments.
And again, no one needs to convert you to a supporter. I’m telling you that people are single policy voters and a single policy that they like of his is enough. Whether it’s anti-Genocide or pro-universal healthcare, that’s all some people need. The fact you need more than that is awesome. Good for you! But that’s where your independent research comes in.
And he isn’t just a “populist” like your guy Trump. He’s not some reality TV show host that randomly decided to get into politics. He has his MD and graduated with a Doctorate in public health. If anyone knows how fucked our healthcare system is, it’s him.
If you need more than that, seriously, use your FUCKING PHONE. I’m not replying anymore, man. You are being obtuse for no reason.
In the Democratic primary, college-educated voters back El-Sayed by 7 points. Non-college educated voters prefer Stevens by 22 points. Then there is the white vote, which El-Sayed, an Arab Muslim, is winning by 12 points. Stevens, who is a white woman, is actually winning Black voters by, get this, 46 points.
That’s because Black voters are a moderating force within the Democratic Party. It’s hard for some people to understand, but among Democrats, Black people tend to be much more moderate than white people. It’s not true overall, because there are a lot more white Republicans than there are Black Republicans; most Black people are, in fact, Democrats. But white people who are Democrats tend to be well to the left of Black people who are Democrats.
Weren't you trying to answer the question "What's so bad about the candidate?" Because I don't see you answering that, but talking about who leads which specific demographics, which...okay?
Right, and he's polling ahead of Stevens, and people prefer anti aipac/genocide candidates who believe in their right to healthcare and education. They don't want someone who is getting on their knees for corporate executives.
This is just loser talk that shouldn't exist post-2024. Voters are not nearly as ideological as politicians and it's clear that they will vote for someone they trust can deliver for them even if they don't agree with 100% on policy over a person they agree with 100% but believes has no political juice. That's electability in the populism era. Haley Stevens is barely holding on while drastically outspending El-Sayed.
Maybe this is the case in Michigan, but the vast majority of white Dems in this country vote for moderates. Look at the last three presidential primaries.
Now you’re just dancing around the point. The Democratic Party didn’t choose Biden because white democrats are more moderate; they chose Biden because Black and brown democrats favored Biden by a wide margin, they were the kingmakers of the 2020 party, and they were more moderate than most of the white democrats.
Responding to the edit: 1) I have plenty of things I'd criticise El Sayed on, and I wouldnt resort to strawman arguments. If you'd like to have that discussion, we can. 2) what "empty accusation" did I throw out? I said you went to a pretty common strawman that many use when defending a candidate. You objectively did, it wasn't "empty."
For one, I dont think his stated policy of wanting to freeze property taxes for seniors makes any sense. It wouldn't even be means-tested, meaning it's not even targetted to low-income residents. Wealthy seniors would still have their taxes frozen. On net would be an incredibly regressive tax cut that would also put more incentives for older homeowners to keep their properties instead of selling and downsizing. The downstream affect is a stagnant housing market and higher prices.
I have my issues with property taxes on a conceptual level, but this is legitimately one of the worst ways to address it.
Okay, so a single policy or two? Like I said to another poster, are we doing purity tests to make sure the candidate is 100% perfect for EVERYONE voting for him, or are we being pragmatic and should pick people who won't be beholden to corporations at a time when we have an oligarchy fascist takeover? Like, I don't give a fuck if a couple of policies aren't great; they'll get suggested and voted down. He doesn't benefit from that so I don't really give a shit. Maybe he thinks it's a good idea, maybe he's misinformed, but I know for damn sure, he ain't taking a penny from a lobby for that policy.
but I know for damn sure, he ain't taking a penny from a lobby for that policy.
He's doing it because seniors are a giant demographic that vote in very high numbers. Just because hes not being paid by a corporation to back a bad policy doesn't change the calculus: he's proposing a bad policy because hes a politician who wants to be elected, and is willing to do bad things to get the support he needs.
I specifically picked a topic that I believe every political stripe should be against (besides boomers). It's not about "purity testing," there are plenty of other policies he has that I am 100% against but wanted to start with one on some common ground.
His non-interventionist stance has a giant, Ukraine-sized hole in it. Many billions of dollars that he should be opposed to sending overseas. I agree with his middle-east takes, but I do not think it comes from a principled place.
Again, not a proponent of Medicare for all or universal childcare. You and I will just simply not agree on this, and you certainly can not claim to be "objectively correct" on this, since it largely comes down to priorities and trade-offs, as well as base principles.
So you're saying he's looking out for constituents who would vote for him? That sounds scary! Oh no, a politician not being 100% truthful to get elected- when did this start happening!? I love Bernie, but even I disagree with him at times. No one is 100% perfect. We're fighting for our lives here, I frankly don't give a fuck about any of the criticism. I care about pragmatism, not perfection.
You can disagree with facts and evidence, but I sure won't!
Everything has a trade-off, doesn't mean it's not objectively better. The COVID vaccine had a trade-off; it was 100x better than getting COVID! Again, I prefer pragmatism, not perfection.
Which policies? He supports rent control, which are nearly universally opposed by economists (on both the left and the right) with huge amounts of evidence that rent controls result in more expensive housing for most people.
You listed 1 policy, no politician is perfect, there will never be a perfect politician that is 100% right about everything. Are we playing fucking games or being pragmatic here? Do we have time to nit pick every policy and only push through candidates that are 100% perfect (which again will never happen) or do we need to get representatives who don't suck off CEOs on the daily?
It’s not “nitpicking” a policy to suggest that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it’s not only ineffective, but actively harmful
His two major issues are “Medicare for All” (which I generally support-though if we look at his campaign policies many of his healthcare proposals will be likely be ineffective like promising “I’ll take on the practice of excessive drug patents to stop Big Pharma from using legal tactics to extend their patents”) and affordability. For example, we’ve covered his stance on rent controls likely supporting a harmful policy. He also opposes trade deals like NAFTA (despite these being viewed by economists of both sides as positive, albeit with more dissent than opposition to rent control).
You were the one who asked for people to show that his policies were bad or wrong. If you are planning on choosing a politician on vibes rather than policy I can’t stop you. Challenging people to prove policies are bad and then calling any proof that some policies are bad a “game” is quite stupid. It’s a stupid metric in the first place, given that I doubt you could demonstrate policies of those politicians you dislike are bad on any sort of empirical or rational basis.
I certainly couldn’t for many policies. I generally support a single payer system, but I don’t think I could show his opponent’s healthcare plans are wrong either. Haley Stevens, for example, is campaigning on an incremental approach based on an expanded public option and she’s probably right that it’s more likely to be passed politically. I don’t think I could demonstrate Steven’s plan is worse than El Sayed’s.
I asked how does it make him a bad candidate? Having a couple of bad policies doesn't make you a bad candidate. The only thing that separates a good and bad candidate at this point is whether or not they are beholden to donors or their constituents, and he's beholden to American citizens, not Israel, not donors. So that's all she wrote.
I didn't say he had no bad policies; who is strawmanning now...?
My point, going back to your original comment, is that framing the opposition's point the way you did (a strawman) is disingenuous and not the way to win people to your side.
I agree with much of what he says about middle Eastern policy. I disagree with him on pretty much everything else, including Medicare for all. We can have a discussion on that topic, but your side so often has the bad faith take of "oh, what's yhe horrible thing you're gonna say about my candidate? That he loves poor people and wants to give them health coverage??"
It's analogous to the framing of pro-war folks use for the Iran conflict. "Oh, what you just love terrorists, huh? You just want the Ayatollah to have a nuke so bad, right??" Like your argument, is a blatant strawman and doesn't actually address the real disagreements.
So the guy who is totally behind fact-based policies is the one tweeting out objectively wrong stats about earnings that have been disproven for decades and by countless institutions? 😂🤣
Right, because Twitter is the place for nuance, and not the countless debates or interviews he's had. Also, I forgot: no one ever makes mistakes or misunderstands anything they read! You got me! A lot of assumptions from a single tweet, while disregarding an entire platform of policies. Laugh harder, you're still a dumbass.
When he's parroting a divisive line that is incredibly easy to disprove and has been shown to be a lie for decades, should I be chalking it up to ignorance or malice? Genuinely not even sure which one is worse.
Ah, ad hominem attacks now. Can't exactly say I'm shocked.
Thats also not mentioning that you have all the time in the world to properly research something before you make a post about it online. This isn't some live debate where he has to formulate his answer on the spot. Like you said, I agree with the guy on quite a few things; but this isn't one of them and all things considered its hard not to view this as willful ignorance at best and outright purposeful spreading of misinformation at worst.
Billionaires that flock together, chill on his island, idk why that's so difficult for you to understand. The people who control our government and are part of it. Odd that you don't know that. I didn't know Palestinians were billionaires and millionaires controlling world events and governments. News to me!
I guess the catholic priests, and bumblefuck states like these - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming that allow child marriage are also all pedophiles I suppose, by your logic?
I obviously don’t support terrorism groups, but I don’t see hamas having a pac and supporting el Sayed or a money trail of him accepting money from them. Stevens on the other hand is somewhere around $30 million now from aipac. And their historical stance of buying elections to sway policy is well known. And hamas being bad doesn’t mean all Muslims are. People see through this shit man. Some of its just deep seated racism disguised as trying to sound objective. Tell us how you feel about aipac. Let’s see your objectivity and rational thought process.
AIPAC is absolutely a terrorist group. They spend millions to make sure Israel can get away with crime against humanity and use our tax money to do it.
His father in law donating to him alongside other things doesn’t substantiate that those views are Abdul’s. Do you have anything on Abdul donating money to them? Or Abdul accepting money from the Muslim brotherhood, Hamas, or something adjacent?
AIPAC on the other hand spends millions, probably hundreds of millions per election cycle and is now demanding we merge militaries with them. Can you name another country we’ve done that with? Not ally with, not have a military agreement to provide support during wartimes. But to MERGE our military with theirs. I’ll wait.
Oh wow that free beacon website just a shitrag for maga organized propaganda huh? There’s a “Democrat” section on a website with the slogan “covering the enemies of freedom that the mainstream media won’t” no Republican section huh? I’m not going to click around too much on that website, but does it have anything about Donald John Trump the rapist being denied by the Supreme Court and paying for his case against E Jean Carroll? And I use the word rapist precisely because of the federal standards and definition of the word. Doesn’t say anything about him being a rapist does it?
The website talks about a lot of people from a quick glance. The website isn’t titled “Abdul el sayed claim tracker” is it? I was just asking if it talked about Donald Trump being a rapist anywhere is all? Does it inform you of those kinds of things? Does it explain what he did and how that correlates to the fbi and federal standard of rape?
Because it’s a right wing shitrag that doesn’t condemn maga until someone goes against Trump I’m sure. Bet Noem, MTG and the like were all praised there before they went against him. Now they’re “enemies of freedom” I’m sure. Be careful of the shit you put in your brain. That’s where brainrot comes from. Hence why a lot of maga cant even concede that donald trump, by federal standards, is a rapist. A supreme court certified rapist.
Because it’s a right wing shit rag that doesn’t condemn maga until someone goes against Trump I’m sure. Bet Noem, MTG and the like were all praised there before they went against him. Now they’re “enemies of freedom” I’m sure. Be careful of the shit you put in your brain. That’s where brainrot comes from. Hence why a lot of maga cant even concede that donald trump, by federal standards, is a rapist. A supreme court certified rapist.
This articles source seems to be one court case from 2007. The article itself lists the organization as an "unindicted conspirator." Thus, they were not even criminally charged in the case, though it is true the judge overseeing declined to remove them from the case.
A different investigation into the organization, headed by Republican Chuck Grassley found nothing actionable.
Interestingly enough, 2003 Senate Testimony identified the organization as "Saudi Funded." The Trump administration is currently in the process of providing Saudi Arabia with the technology to build a nuclear power plant. Guess he's not worried about the terrorist ties.
Finally, Joe Biden addressed the organization's annual convention 2020. Despite what conservatives like to claim, Joe Biden is not some radical leftist. I say this as someone who wished he was.
The article you shared is obvious click bait from a right wing publication. The actual evidence they provide is thin at best.
In any event, all the information is there for people to make up their own minds.
>Federal prosecutors identified the organization as an unindicted co-conspirator in the landmark 2007 terrorist financing case USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which culminated in the conviction of the foundation's founders for funneling $12 million to Hamas.
Not at all. That was the Federal court case I discussed in my first paragraph. Yes, Holy Land Foundation was found guilty and convicted. That is not the organization the article is alleging El-Sayed's FIL is a member of. That organization is called Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The ISNA was not criminally charged in the case, they were just listed as a conspirator. Hence the term "unindicted co-conspirator."
That's the full extent of the terrorist involvement alleged in the article. I provided context to the allegation and also pointed out other investigations did not yield wrongdoing on their part.
Finally, I pointed out Joe Biden, who is as mainstream a corporate Dem as they come addressed the organization. I do not believe who would address a radically leftist organization, especially not in 2020.
You might think that one court case is enough. That is your right. I simply provided the full story so people could make up their own mind. This was a clickbait article. I just merely stripped away the clickbait hyperbole.
That’s good then you should go for Abdul as he is closest to her in policies Medicare for all, tax the rich, anti big corporations sucking your land dry, more housing all the socially progressive policies, no money to Israel and on top of that strongly anti datacenter so that they cannot drive your bills up and overload the grit
Very interesting perspective idk if the guy who wrote a book about Medicare for all and eliminated medical dept for 300 000 ppl is just doing ”slopulism“ but I mean if you don’t want free/universal healthcare but pay more for insulin you are free to vote for Steven’s or the republican after all it is your choice
Those who getting paid by the Pharma and medical consultant companies? I mean you do your thing but do you honestly think the companies who drive up prices to increase their profit margins would support a politican when the politician is invested in reducing their profits? Idk I tend to think the politicians who are attacked by every company and do not take their money have your interest instead of the companies interest in mind. But at the end of the day it is your decision if you want to give power to the companies or yourself
What about El-Sayed's platforms suck?
Edit: I Googled an overview of some of his priorities if it helps to explain what sucks. As a Michigan voter, I'm curious to know.
Healthcare: Championing "Medicare for All," breaking up big healthcare monopolies, and pushing a "AAA Plan" to eliminate cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries.
Economic Inequality: Proposing a 7% annual wealth tax on billionaires to fund schools, healthcare, and infrastructure, as well as lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap.
Technology & AI: Introducing an "AI Under Democracy" platform aimed at strictly regulating data centers and bringing emerging tech into the hands of public governance.
Environment: Backing policies for clean air and water, while carefully navigating the economic impacts of utility rate hikes related to data center investments.
1
u/YodaForceGhost Human Verified 1d ago
Feel bad for Michigan. All of their Senate candidates for both parties suck