Antisemitism is completely unacceptable, and so I don’t want my elected officials doing anything antisemitic. Like, say, amplifying antisemitic messages. Fortunately, El-Sayed has chosen not to do so, even when others, like Stevens and yourself, are begging him to amplify antisemitism.
If and when El Sayed underperforms with Jewish voters, I assume that will all be their fault? None of the blame will be on him for failing to listen to what the community has been asking of him?
I still don’t understand your view. Why do you want him to focus on and elevate potential antisemitism from a grifting troll nobody? Wouldn’t that be political malpractice? Does he have to condemn every potentially anti-semitic thing some nobody asshole puts out online?
ISTM that it’s far better to say “I’m not going to comment on this random internet bullshit, let’s talk about MAGA Mike Rogers and his corruption (and prices and jobs and health care etc.)”.
What community? Do you have data that suggests Jewish Michigan Democrats are especially angry at AES or reluctant to support him?
That however does not read as antisemitic to me. The war of choice in Iran, arguably at least partly influenced by Trump’s bromance with Bibi, has direct bearing on costs. I can disagree with how much the motivation is stupid misguided working for an ally’s interest, vs just stupid flex, but I don’t see Jew hate saying that.
@iiandyiiii point remains that the statement “no one cares about …” about the Uygar ad and the weak sauce reaction to that “support” is factually untrue. YOU don’t care. There are those of us who do.
It was hyperbole. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. I think Cenk is a trolling grifter who should be ignored, and I’m glad AES is ignoring him, and you haven’t convinced me that he should focus on and elevate the message of a trolling grifter.
I’ll add that I accept that you may have some sincere concerns about him. I don’t remotely accept that Stevens is publicly berating AES and not condemning her fiance for praising Mike Rogers (and thus working to sabotage AES’s campaign at the last minute) for any legitimate reason.
Because some who espouse anti Israel rhetoric are motivated more by Jew hate than anything else, and some could really use reassurance that a particular candidate is not one of them. Worry about that can be very divisive going forward. I don’t think El-Sayeed is one of those people, but harder for me to convince others who think he is when he avoids condemning those who do when given the chance.
Uygar is a grifter sure. But he is a grifter with a significant following especially among some who identify as Progressive. He’s been cited on these boards positively many times over the years for example, especially back in the Bernie days.
Of course it was hyperbole. But the message of the hyperbole is that those of us who do don’t matter.
Which may be true. And is part of the worry - that going forward in the party we don’t.
I’m really curious as to what makes you say that. He hasn’t denounced any of the people who clearly are in that camp, or even their messaging. Do you have any specific reasons to believe this, or is it just wishful thinking?
Hasn’t he condemned quite a few anti-semites? Most importantly, the MAGA ones. I don’t see why Cenk is so important (especially when it’s so clear this particular video is for attention and trolling).
IMO, “Democrats” who work to sabotage Democrats running for office against MAGA opponents, like Stevens, Fetterman, Sinema, etc., don’t matter and should be left in the political woods. Cenk too, by the way (because he’s a grifter). I don’t think you qualify.
The Platner thing demonstrates this perfectly, I think. Those of us concerned about his anti-semitic warning signs were ignored at best, and called MAGA supporting traitors at worst. It’s not until it came out that he was a trash human being for entirely different reasons that people stopped running cover for him.
Those people are wrong. In the 90’s they might have had an argument but nowadays the parties are more polarized, supreme court justices are confirmed essentially on party lines and the make party line rulings on issues ranging from human rights to core tenets of our democracy.
And while the primaries are still not a great way to hash this out, they still do allow for “soul of the party” debates to play out and in the case of Michigan, Sayed pretty clearly one a 2-person race entirely fairly.
The only people in this thread saying that were not talking about El Sayed or the Michigan race at all, so you can take that up with @Thing.Fish and his comments about Iowa.
Pretty brazen to invoke this in Michigan, where Sayed’s base of support in the Wayne County Hezbollah Belt split about evenly in 2024 between Trump and wacky third-party candidates who were essentially Trump proxy votes. The fact that confused “Israel and Jews are the only issue” voters displayed no thought at all as to the consequences of a Trump victory and directly enabled it happening is exactly why the demand for total falling-in-line from Stevens is coming off as so galling. She has endorsed Sayed and wants to keep endorsing Sayed, and all she’s asking is that he affirmatively agree that Jews are not stealing his bananas, and he won’t do it!
What a joke. This is politics, and on the verge of the general election. You don’t take private, intra-party disagreements public unless you want to harm the candidate.
Yep, It’s quite rich seeing all the people who justified the Uncommitted National Movement call Stevens a MAGA enabler. Mind boggling levels of hypocrisy.
Blue No Matter Who is dead; they are the ones who killed it.
And before anyone lies about my position, El Sayed is the better candidate in this race.
The Luz Cheney backlash was basically thecsame as the Carlson backlash.
A candidate basically sent the message "even though I disagree with on everything they think im a better option because of and morons took that as an endorsement of the Republican.
So explain why it’s okay in this case, on the verge of the general election, to take public action that harms AES and helps Mike Rogers? Private disagreements could remain private, without harming the candidate, if Stevens truly felt this way.
Has he? Specifically for antisemitism? Not just generically. I specifically don’t see that in context of Carlson. Which was a really good chance for him to do that
And … condemning someone like Carlson for antisemitic tropes is the lowest hanging fruit. Condemning someone of his own side who crosses the line means more. Statements against bombing of a temple after linking the attack to Israel are not quite what I am looking for. Blithe generic statements of “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own kids. We have a responsibility to take on antisemitism in all of its forms, wherever we see it.” is not quite reassuring. Saying that people who say hateful things don’t speak for him is not it.
Which specific instances of doing business of the trade of antisemitic tropes has he condemned?
I agree. I agree that applies to those who say fuck that guy in Iowa too. The big picture is too important.
Yes -
And FWIW if it was a choice between Platner even as a likely rapist, and Collins with Senate control even possibly at stake, I’d be supporting Platter. But let’s not hijack to someone not on the ballot now please.
The person I’m saying isn’t rational for her lack of support of the Democratic candidate is Stevens.
I also think @Thing.Fish is wrong in case I didn’t already make that clear.