Mike Rogers is ‘unfit to serve’, right-wing commentator writes, after wave of Islamophobic abuse against El-Sayed and Zohran Mamdani over 9/11

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.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    112·
    17 hours ago

    This logic is how Trump (the previous Kremlin choice) was elected.

    I agree. By refusing to, and failing to understand Trump, and why what Trump was doing was working (or to even acknowledge it was working), Liberals, and Democrats more broadly, set us up for this era of fascism we’re in. Its the fault of those who refused to understand their opponents that these easily beatable buffoons have become pillars of the modern political landscape.

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.worldBanned from community
      46·
      16 hours ago

      Trump won because of election interference from Russia.

      Key Evidence and Methods of Russian election interference:

      • Cyber Hacking: Russian military intelligence (the GRU) hacked the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and key campaign officials like John Podesta, subsequently releasing stolen data via outlets like WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2.0. [1, 2]
      • Social Media Disinformation: The St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) used hundreds of fake social media personas, bot networks, and purchased advertisements to amplify divisive political and social issues, masquerading as U.S. citizens to sway public discourse. [1, 2]
      • Targeting Election Infrastructure: Russian cyber actors scanned and probed state voter registration databases and election systems across multiple states ahead of the 2016 election, though vote tallies were not altered. [1, 2]
      • Criminal Indictments: Federal grand juries indicted dozens of Russian nationals and military intelligence officers for computer hacking, identity theft, and conspiracy against the United States. [1, 2]

      Official Findings

      • Intelligence Community Assessments: Concluded that the Russian leadership developed a clear preference for Donald Trump and aimed to denigrate Hillary Clinton while undermining public faith in the American democratic process. [1, 2]
      • Bipartisan Senate Findings: Confirmed the extensive nature of these foreign cyber and influence operations, noting coordination between online Russian fronts and active distribution channels
          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            82·
            16 hours ago

            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.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                52·
                15 hours ago

                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?