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.
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 @[email protected] '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?
Also consider the fact that if this post were being brigaded by bots that you would see anyone suspicious of the bot’s talking point to have some counter argument being made against them trying to steer the narrative.
These comments that are reasonably skepitcal of Tucker Carlson would be downvoted by the brigaders and the bot’s talking point would be boosted to the top by the bots because it is easy to outnumber real users with bots.
If the bot’s narrative isn’t a genuine opinion held by the readers you would see multiple real users getting downvoted just like you do throughout this thread.
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.”