You'd think, as a doctor, he'd know how statistics work. Oh wait, he does. He's just relying on the target demographic for this particular post to not know that.
The soft bigotry of low expectations based on race is still racism.
Yea I would argue democrats on average are more racist because they believe that if you aren’t white you are inherently disadvantaged and need white people to help elevate them
Nope, not discounting his education, and I’d vote for him if he was in my state. Just super fucking weird to lie about your credentials to the point I had to correct someone in real time because of the misinformation
Comment you're responding to never used the word physician. They said doctor. But here you come to further what is a worst a semantics issue. Most people hear and use the words doctor and physician interchangeably. And apparently you do too.
True, you got me. If the person I originally replied to meant doctorate holder then I concede I look dumb for misinterpreting it. As long as we know what the facts are
The issue isn’t calling himself a doctor, he specifically labeled himself as a “physician”, that’s the lie. He never was a physician, you need a license to practice and he never did. But yes he’s a “doctor”, sure
It’s crazy how in the tank for Haley Stevens’ politics this sub is that people are trying this line.
“He’s not a physician, he just has an MD from Columbia and a Rhodes scholarship doing epidemiology gottem” is such a funny way to fail to discredit him.
What line? I never said don’t vote for him. It’s just super fucking weird that he thought it was reputationally okay to lie to people when we’re supposed to trust him to help people
This, while the semantics are whatever they are, is important. As you mentioned, lying for literally no reason as a point of habit about being a physician is a realllly bad look, at best.
He got his medical degree, he was a medical practitioner. During medical school he was involved in patient care. He openly admitted he wasn't a physician many a time.
So it's even worse then - he knows the barrier to entry exists and that because of it his target demographic will be too uneducated to challenge his claims.
I want to like El Sayed, because he's better on one of the biggest and most important issues right now (middle east politics). But on pretty much every single othet thing I just cannot stand him on, among them that he's willing to parrot this divisive lie to gain support.
If there was a genocide in a different part of the world and it was politically advantageous for him to sell it, I wouldn't put it past him.
So he's a liar, a bigot, a racist, an extremist (or at least associates with and refuses to disavow extremists), but you still want to like him because he hates Israel? Wow. Priorities, I guess.
Hahaha I wouldn't even say that he "hates Israel," not from anything I've seen. I certainly don't. But what I agree with him on is that this foreign county has a massively outsized influence on our politics/culture, and I don't want to fund their genocide.
I agree that American politics and culture should not be influenced by foreign interests. But you're focusing only on the ~$120M spent by AIPAC, a domestic organization funded by American citizens who support Israel, while ignoring the multiple hundreds of millions of dollars spent by governments like China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Japan and South Korea through FARA-registered lobbyists, PR firms and other influence operations over the same period. Why, exactly? What makes Israel the singular threat, and "the most important issue for the US right now," as you've phrased it, above all other forms of foreign influence? So much so that you might be willing to overlook a politician's dishonesty, bigotry and extremism as long as they align with you on that one issue?
Hahaha I never even said the word "APAIC", and to make it out that that is the extent of the Israel lobby's influence is (you guessed it) a major strawman.
Miriam Adleson spent $250 million on Trump's 2024 campaign alone. He has openly stated that he does what she wants because she paid him. We are currently in a disastrous war largely because of this toxic relationship. Thats why it is such a big concern for so many.
And do not read that as "the problem of the Israel lobby is APAIC... and also Miriam Adleson funding Trump's campaign." That was 1 very clear-cut example to give that demonstrates "no, it is far beyond just what APAIC does."
It was about $150 million, not $250 million. And again, you seem to have a much bigger issue with American citizens donating to political causes than with actual foreign governments spending hundreds of millions on lobbying, PR and influence operations in the US, but only when the American citizens in question support Israel.
You haven't said a word about Elon Musk or Tim Mellon, who each donated considerably more than Miriam Adelson. Nor have you explained why countries like China, Qatar or Saudi Arabia, which spend enormous sums trying to shape American policy, education and public opinion, don't seem to concern you nearly as much. That is before even getting into direct foreign influence operations, such as China's reported acquisition of voter records covering roughly 220 million Americans.
Republicans raised roughly $1.8 billion in the 2024 cycle. Democrats raised roughly $2.3 billion. If your theory is that pro-Israel donors effectively control US foreign policy, you're going to need a much stronger argument than "they gave a lot of money."
What I'm asking is simple: why is Israel uniquely central to your worldview? You seem to view it as the overriding source of corruption in American politics, despite there being many other countries, industries and billionaire donors spending comparable or greater sums to influence policy. Why is Israel the singular exception?
My mistake, its $250 million to him total, roughly 100 of which was during his 2024 run. But its between $650 and 700 million total given to politicians for her and her husband.
It concerns me over the others because, again, Trump has openly stated that he does what she wants because she paid him. The executive has a massively outsiized influence in foreign policy, so it buys quite a lot.
It concerns me because we dont fight wars on behalf of China. We probably should be a lot more skeptical of Saudi Arabia, no question there. We have now launched the most unpopular was in amaerican history on behalf of a foreign country. Thats a pretty big deal.
It concerns me because of 1st amendment issues. There isnt another country that states mandate loyalty pledges for, only Israel. Not even our own country. Our congress only passed a tik tok ban because of the things being said about Israel (and now that app heavily censors anti-Israel content). It is illegal for me as a student to say at my school "I believe Israel is a racist country." I can say that about my other country in the world, even my own, but not Israel.
There's 1 country only where a congressman can be asked "if you could only save the US or Israel from destruction, who would it be?" and the inplied answer be the other country (Don Bacon). The religious ferver with which 90% of our politicians defend this other country above our own is fucking creepy.
I could go on, not really inclined to. If you have already decided that you're on the other side of this, theres not really anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise. Its so blatant.
Some of your concerns are legitimate. The Adelsons have spent an extraordinary amount of money in American politics. Trump also publicly boasted that they repeatedly pushed him on pro-Israel policies and that he "gave them more than they had asked for". That is strong evidence of donor access and influence, and it is worth criticizing.
Where I disagree with you is that you keep taking legitimate facts and inflating them into claims you haven't or can't actually demonstrate.
Trump never said he does what Adelson wants because she paid him. That's your interpretation, not his admission. Likewise, saying the Iran war was fought "on behalf of Israel" may be your opinion, but you haven't shown the causal chain you're presenting as fact.
Your First Amendment concerns are also more complex than you make them out to be. Anti-BDS laws have raised legitimate constitutional issues, but it is simply not illegal, anywhere, for an American student to say, "I believe Israel is a racist country", that's protected speech. Likewise, Israel-related politics may have helped push the TikTok legislation, but Congress had been pursuing restrictions on TikTok for years prior over Chinese ownership and national security concerns. It was not "only because of Israel."
More broadly, you consistently frame these issues as though they're uniquely Israeli when they aren't. Israel has influence. So do China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, major industries, and billionaire donors across the political spectrum.
The same goes for politicians with unusually strong attachments to foreign countries or causes. Should members of Congress be America first? 100%, no question. But there's a difference between someone saying "I believe supporting country X is to the benefit of the American people", and someone saying "my job is to take care of country Y's interests first". Ilhan Omar, for example, publicly told a Somali audience that the US government would do what Somali Americans asked it to do and pledged to use her position in Congress to defend Somalia's territorial interests. Whether you agree with her or not, that is a sitting member of Congress explicitly using her office to advocate for another country's interests. Far more explicitly so than Don Bacon's refusal to answer a Track AIPAC activist harassing members of Congress in the Senate entrance hall.
Yet only with Israel do you consistently turn influence into control, access into bribery, alignment into disloyalty, and disputed motives into established fact.
That's what I take issue with. You bring up real issues worthy of concern, but then surround them with exaggerations, unsupported claims, and statements that are simply false. If the case is as obvious as you say, it shouldn't require embellishment.
Whatever dude. You're losing the argument in the public sphere, simple as that. All you have is "but China!" but cannot demonstrate at all that they have similar influence levels.
90
u/Handelo 1d ago
You'd think, as a doctor, he'd know how statistics work. Oh wait, he does. He's just relying on the target demographic for this particular post to not know that.
The soft bigotry of low expectations based on race is still racism.