A wave of Republican attacks against two Muslim Democrats has ended with one of the most prominent right-wing commentators in the country endorsing Abdul El-Sayed for Senate.
Tucker Carlson wrote in his newsletter on Friday that El-Sayed’s opponent, Mike Rogers, was unfit for office and defended him over his past criticism of the war on terror.
The Michigan Democrat emerged from this past week after a wave of attacks were hurled at him and Zohran Mamdani, the first elected Muslim mayor of New York, around the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Both men were the subject of intense focus from media organizations on the right and even some mainstream outlets as the two faced differing but related accusations of anti-American sentiment impossible to separate from their Muslim faith.
Yes yes yes. Every one who doesn’t agree with with you is a Russian op.
We shouldn’t try to understand our opponents or why their messages seem to resonate with audiences. No, we instead require “Trump bad” as the first test to ensure loyalty to the brand, then ensure the counter party is pure enough in their support for Israel and blue no matter who.
Surely simply demanding loyalty to a brand which has been objectively disloyal to its voters won’t, yet again blow up in Democrats faces.
Removed by mod
I mean do you think you are actually convincing any one with these absurd accusations (other than maybe yourself, by shrinking and shrinking the circular nature of your own thinking).
You basically have a toddler level analysis of 2016, and are accusing anyone who has a mature thought as being an “obvious russian bot”. That only works on people who also are decrepit, toddler level thinkers.
So if you’ve gotten down this far into this thread, dear reader, I ask you to consider who you think @UsernameHere@lemmy.world 's rhetoric to operate on. Like, who is it that we think this user is trying to convince with their words? Its obviously not us. And if they aren’t arguing to convince us, who is it they are trying to operate on?
One could say that they are looking to split off “liberals” from the rest of the left with this kind of rhetoric. In this sense, they act as a “wrecker” to any kind of populist, leftist movement. Scratch a “russian bad” liberal, and how deep will we have to go to find a zionist apologist, a blue MAGA’t, someone promoting the least viable, most reprehensible instincts of the Democratic party?
It does beg the question doesn’t it?
Removed by mod
Seems like you’re implying that Lemvotes somehow disproves the existence of bots and brigading lmao
I’m implying that you are a toddler brained Liberal who’s analysis is narrowly focused in a kind of maladaptive reactionary analysis that can’t seem to get further than “Trump bad. Trump Russia. Peepee tape.”
Removed by mod
I’ve not offered an iota of conjecture about Tuckers role with Russia you oblivious illterate. Develop some reading comprehension.
You don’t have the mental faculties to comprehend that understanding someone, their motivations, the strategy doesn’t mean you agree with them.
That makes you illiterate to understanding what it takes to oppose people like Tucker. You are so baby brained you can’t understand words or what they mean. Its something we excuse children for but not full grown adults.
You have obligation to understand those you disagree with, because you can’t offer a resistance to them if you don’t understand them or how they operate. And this pervasive baby brained thinking on the part of liberals is half of why were in this mess. Your all so used to just being consumers, to having everything chewed up and spit into your brain by Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein, your actual critical thinking skills are anemic.