- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/69592
Abdul El-Sayed Triumphs Over Haley Stevens in $60M Loss for AIPAC, Corporations
Former public health official Abdul El-Sayed has achieved a dominant win in Michigan’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate on Tuesday, winning by a narrow margin over Rep. Haley Stevens in a ground-shaking triumph over the $60 million spent by AIPAC and corporations to oppose him. With over 95 percent of the vote counted, El-Sayed had 48.5 percent of the vote, compared to Stevens’s 47.5…
From Truthout via This RSS Feed.
You must log in or # to comment.
Someone on Vaush’s youtube-channel made this lovely comment:
Inflation has gotten so insane that 60 million can’t even buy an election anymore.
Double-entendre even, nice
Sorry, what’s the double entendre here? I didn’t get it…
Gotta say, I went out to the primaries yesterday to do the whole elect who to elect later thing, and Abdul was the very first lad I went to. Honestly feels refreshing hearing people speaking about some actual leftist values instead of “hurr durr muh corporate donors.” As far as governor goes though, Jocelyn Benson seems alright and at least spouts leftist rhetoric, yet the datacenter policy is a bit concerning. I can see why she adopted it, but I woulda just wanted a bit more in that regard.
Edit: Wowzers, that was a dang close primary for Abdul too. Not gonna lie, feels good getting someone anti-establishment in place.
Good news still happens. Chefs kiss!
That’s a fucking insane level of spending to not win.
Just more proof that most of what the US calls ‘democracy’ is just a rich person dick measuring contest.
Wouldn’t it be proof of the opposite since the one who spent more didn’t win?
This case is the exception, not the norm
Uh, 48.5 to 47.5 isn’t a “triumph” or a “dominant win”.
It’s surprising and seismic, but it was a narrow victory. I hear Piker’s livestream was full of people screaming at each other last night when they were starting the night expecting to romp.
Last minute, El-Sayed also definitely seemed cocky.
While a 1% win isn’t generally a “triumph”, it is in the context of a moderate endorsement diff in a swing state, and a whopping 10-1 spending diff! Like holy shit, doomsayers go home, change is possible no matter the odds if you organize and get out there!
If you’re not going to help row the boat jump off and start swimming back to shore.
It was a win, winning fixes everything.
But it wasn’t the ten point win a lot of people expected.
Demagogues aren’t left📣
No true scottsma📣
Glad you can admit then🤣
From Wikipedia: No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy in which one modifies a prior claim in response to a counterexample by asserting the counterexample is excluded by definition. Rather than admitting error or providing evidence to disprove the counterexample, the original claim is changed by using a non-substantive modifier such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, or other similar terms.
i dont think this fits into no true scotsman, but you seem to not have a very good grasp of it either, so id like to give you all a reminder :3
reread the🧵
- truthout.org lies a senator is “left”
- I remind 196 senators are not “left”
- @mandarbmax@lemmy.world accuses me of fallacious commentary
- I retort back <img src=“https://emojis.slackmojis.com/emojis/images/1728987018/101278/uno_reverse.gif?1728987018” alt=“uno reverse” height=“auto” width=“16”>
- mandarbmax downranks both
- you’re here
yeah i reread it a couple times
youre engaging in a no true scotsman, and i want to make sure than both you and others are understanding this. youre not using any marker for “the left” as its got such a broad meaning that people will disagree. you have no stance :p
Yet you declared yourself an “anarchist” and know what solidarity, intersection, and digressive victimhood looks like.
Tell 196 again how a Dubaite landlord is empowering Michiganders again?if youre going to engage in a no true scotsman, can you at least make it make emotional sense? i have no knowledge of the topic, but i do understand how people use language in ways that can make them agree with you even if they have no prior knowledge, and would like to point it out
maybe theres a reason people downvote you
Demagogues predate the left/right conception of politics by about 2200 years
I am unsure your point here.
Slavery predates democracies.
Does this mean we should keep slavery?
Likewise, senates are not civilian empowering and intersecting positions.theyre saying that Demagogues are harder to place on the left to right spectrum (is it a spectrum?) than other, more recent parties due to being older than it :3
your analogy is also just shock and doesnt hold up past it. yes, no one wants slavery, catagorization is not equal to letting slavery happen
also toki pona speaker epiku epiku! :3
theyre saying that Demagogues are harder to place on the left to right spectrum (is it a spectrum?) than other, more recent parties due to being older than it :3
HEAVILY DOUBT (X) THIS. Even if @eestileib@sh.itjust.works meant it this way, it demonstrates a lack of political literacy, and, in my observation, political dishonesty on es part:
Demagogy, and liberal rule by mobs, were discussed at lengths during both ancient Greece and modernity. The word «anarchy» originates from those written discussions. Ignorance of history does not excuse an electoralist from pretending a senator won’t crush their voters.your analogy
Take English classes first. That wasn’t an analogy, that is a 🌈comparison.✨ꘖ固◡※
deflection. semantics arent the point of the argument so pointing it out makes you look like youre avoiding the argument im making
You made 3 arguments that each were addressed. You’re now accusing me of deflecting my counter arguments.
How about instead address the Dubai landlord and ask him to gives his parasitic stolen rents to Michiganders.you did not address my “shock value” argument out of saying “actually its comparison, not analogy” and acting like i have no merit
“I’ve been down voted, therefore democracy is the same thing as slavery” can’t possibly be what you mean but it is genuinely the only take away I’ve got from this comment.
I’ve been thinking and wondering about this sort of thing. Are demagogues not left because they’re authority figures, and true left-right spectrum is anarchism vs. authoritarianism?
Depends 1) who is saying this 2) and for what means.
Truthout is an established neoliberal news corporation (1). They have the vested interest to maintain dominance of your attention on what they want you to focus on (2). For this particular case, they are lying to the audience that Abdul El-Sayed will vote in the Senate toward leftist agendas, all the while not actually doing leftist work.
I am a black anarchist (1). I go out of my way to feed people, house people, intersect issues, etc… My interest is empowering you and me to ensure our needs are met. Thus I have vested interest in maintaining honest relationships, speaking truthfully, and earning your camaraderie (2). When I say a senator is not the left, I mean it in what constitutes actions that empower our lives. Demagogues only empower their agendas, while we have to empower ourselves.
Liberals in this network downrank comments that point out this hypocrisy. They hate the truth, because it is not in their interest to support each other. They want us squabbling over if the senate will return our stolen wealth.despite being an anarchist (like myself), you show a lot of belief in being elitist and political superior than most others here. i thought we were against hireachy, which also includes social hireachy. you need to accept that you are no better than people you disagree with if you are to actually be taken seriously rather than hypocrite as you so obviously dislike :p
Now you’re straightforwardly projecting.
If you’re remotely anarchist, you’d hanging this Dubaite landlord. Why are you kissing his slaver boot for?i dont make any claims that i agree or disagree with the topic at hand, i dont have the political knowledge to do so and id rather not just take someones word for it. i think, rather, that youre just not putting your beliefs in sound arguments. i want to show other people that youre not making logically sound arguments, youre doing no better than any politician.
i dont have the political knowledge Then disengage political discussions until you acquire some. Why bother replying to things you have no knowledge on? <img src=“https://cdn.blahaj.zone/files/b8c54de9-ac3b-4b7c-a757-1cd423d85454” alt=“🍮😺 waitwut” width=“24” height=“auto”>
i think, rather, that youre just not putting your beliefs in sound arguments. i want to show other people that youre not making logically sound arguments, youre doing no better than any politician
i dont have the political knowledge What is this logical fallacy you’re rhetorizing here called again?
