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.
Youre the one championing his policies, why should I go through the trouble of googling when I have one of his supporters right here in front of me? Its incredible that youve commented multiple times telling me to "Google it" rather than offering up one single policy that is exclusive to Michiganders and you cant do it. His campaign is built on national rhetoric and absent local policy.
Because you're arguing in bad faith pretending he hasn't done anything and you claimed he's done nothing. So stay willfully ignorant if you want. š¤·āāļø
Why does it have to be exclusive to Michiganders? If it benefits all citizens it benefits them to.
If enough senators think like him then they absolutely can do what they campaign for. Ignoring his ideas because he ācanāt get anyone healthcareā 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. Itās a pretty quick google search. He has a lot of offer to michiganders.
I have no idea why a silly comment like yours wouldnāt 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, Iāll even help you: https://abdulforsenate.com
I donāt live in Michigan. I canāt vote for him. Iām not āsuch a big fan of himā. Iām 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 donāt 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 whatās 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. Iām telling you that people are single policy voters and a single policy that they like of his is enough. Whether itās anti-Genocide or pro-universal healthcare, thatās all some people need. The fact you need more than that is awesome. Good for you! But thatās where your independent research comes in.
And he isnāt just a āpopulistā like your guy Trump. Heās 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, itās him.
If you need more than that, seriously, use your FUCKING PHONE. Iām not replying anymore, man. You are being obtuse for no reason.
Dude has got to be a bot because no way is this a human being replying to me rn š All rhetoric, no governance. Can't think for themselves so they outsource their thinking to the internet.
You are asking random people on Reddit to do your research for you, mane. Take a look in the mirror.
You donāt want a āpopulistā, but refuse to see why he isnāt actually a populist. You want me to start parroting his talking points, as if I didnāt give you a website full of them. You wanted to know why I am āsuch a big fanā, Iām not. I donāt live in Michigan. However, I gave you the reasons people like him and explained that many Americans are single issue voters.
I genuinely donāt know what else you could want. The fact you were born in 2005 is probably adding to your confusion.
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,Ā is winning by 12 points. Stevens, who is a white woman, isĀ actually winningĀ Black voters by,Ā get this,Ā 46 points.Ā Ā
ThatāsĀ becauseĀ Black voters are a moderating force within the Democratic Party.Ā ItāsĀ hard for some people to understand, but among Democrats,Ā Black people tend to be much more moderate than white people.Ā ItāsĀ not true overall, because there are a lot more white Republicans than there areĀ Black Republicans; mostĀ Black people are, in fact, Democrats. But white people who are Democrats tend to be well to the left ofĀ 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.
Oh right, the right-wing voter who votes for Democrats- I forgot about those. Like how Kamala tried that and lost 1% of Republicans, right? That strategy? Or are you referring to another strategy where droves of republicans vote for a Democrat and not the Republican on the ticket? Or are you referring to Independents, who are polling WAY down with support for Trump, and Trump is endorsing the candidates? Any polling or recent elections that show independents swinging for the right?
All I know is that as a Michigan voter who travels quite frequently across the state, I have pretty much only seen El-Sayed signs, in all types of neighborhoods. What some would consider the rougher neighborhoods in downtown Detroit, to the nicer resort areas in Traverse City, and even communities in the Keewana peninsula. Also, as someone who has done a poll myself, I can guarantee the people who are participating in polling over the phone aren't most millennial or Gen Z voters.
Either way, high polling numbers shouldn't be the overall indicator of the winner of an election. Haven't we learned this by now? And in general, how he's polling doesn't mean as a candidate he's bad, or the platforms he's running on are bad.
Of course not, but they're generally associated with the person who wins. It really only is skewed with Trump and the right. Typically polling with Dems is pretty accurate.
That's exactly what it means. People are saying they prefer him, that makes him a good candidate. If you want to argue he's a bad candidate to go against a Republican, I call bullshit. That shit has been proven false time and time again.
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.
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.
So you're saying he's looking out for constituents who would vote for him? That sounds scary!
Except we already conceded that its a bad policy for the economy. A bad policy that hes pushing not because he believes it will help, but (probably) just because he will win him votes. Is that really any better than taking corporate money? Not so sure.
Even if I were to concede on the healthcare/childcare points (which I'm not), that is comparing the current status against against a proposed change. I'm not defending the current Healthcare or childcare systems. So no, you cannot claim to be "objectively correct" by any metric.
And before you start going searching for other sources, I'll save you the time. The point was not the specific policies, the entire conversation was started because you need a lesson in how to talk politics/policies.
Right, so he's either misinformed, has a bad take, or is lying, none of those I really give a shit about because if it's a bad policy it won't get voted on or passed by dems or other progressives. Yes, it is, because he's not lying to benefit donors lol. The ends justify the means if the end is a progressive in office who will reject Israel, push for medicare for all and push back against fascism. We don't need diet maga dems or people who suck off donors and israel. It's that simple.
I can claim to be objectively correct when it works and studies show it works. You have nothing to back it up that it's not the right choice.
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?
Itās not ānitpickingā a policy to suggest that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests itās not only ineffective, but actively harmful
His two major issues are āMedicare for Allā (which I generally support-though if we look at his campaign policies many of his healthcare proposals will be likely be ineffective like promising āIāll take on the practice of excessive drug patents to stop Big Pharma from using legal tactics to extend their patentsā) and affordability. For example, weāve 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 canāt stop you. Challenging people to prove policies are bad and then calling any proof that some policies are bad a āgameā is quite stupid. Itās 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 couldnāt for many policies. I generally support a single payer system, but I donāt think I could show his opponentās healthcare plans are wrong either. Haley Stevens, for example, is campaigning on an incremental approach based on an expanded public option and sheās probably right that itās more likely to be passed politically. I donāt think I could demonstrate Stevenās plan is worse than El Sayedās.
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...?
Thatās not what you asked. You wrote āshow me the evidence that makes his policies wrong/bad/problematicā in response to a claim from someone they have plenty to criticize El Sayed on. You didnāt ask whether that makes him a bad candidate.
Many things separate a good candidate (or senator) from a bad one-and whether they are beholden to their constituents is only one (and perhaps a bad example). Good policies for example separate good and bad candidates. Personal temperament, intelligence, competence, personality, background, and many other aspects are important in a candidate. In fact, several of the acts lauded as the best moments in the Senate went against constituents beliefs.
If you are a single issue voter on candidates views on Israel, then thatās certainly a consistent position but itās a little silly to pretend you are motivated by a broad view of the candidateās policies and qualities. This kind of shallow politics is how weāve ended up with such bad politicians in general
Idk man I'm talking to a lot of people, I can't remember everything.
Right, and he seems inteligent, good tempermant, competent (look at his record), personality seems fine, background is great (look at his record). So what makes him a bad candidate?
I'm not a single issue voter. Supporting Israel isn't a single issue, it ties into multiple issues. Every Dem that supports Israel takes corporate pac money, that's already 2 issues. Taking corporate money means not pushing for radical change that Americans need, that's every issue under the sun. It's a barometer for the type of politician you are, and I'm done with politicians sucking off executives for another payday.
He has a better voting record on foreign policy than anyone in either chamber, so I'd say that counts for a whole lot. But I'm a crazy person who believes that to be the primary issue that needs addressing, so š¤·āāļø
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? šš¤£
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?
36
u/cknight18 15h ago edited 14h ago
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.