VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

It proves he has no moral backbone. How can you not see that?

Does he propose a way, anywhere in his comments that are publicly available, for the citizens to rise up against the regime?

The regime has guns, the people don't. That's why the score is 50K-0 in Iranians vs the regime.

But that dumb**** will never say that.

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

Defend the America hating muslim.

The IRGC is his biggest donor.

BboroAg said:

---

He may be a Democrat…but the issue at hand is that he is a Muslim…and Muslims just don't mix with the US constitution.

---

Where is Islam or Muslims mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

Defend the America hating muslim.

---

He hates it so much he is running for US Senator.

VaterAg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

Defend the America hating muslim.

---

He hates it so much he is running for US Senator.

---

Beware the enemy from within.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

sure, that's terrible. But at least he doesn't support Israel. So he's the better option. Or so I heard

---

Yep, bet Tucker Qatarlson pumps his fragile little soft handed fists to this guy.

---

Careful. We still have plenty of crayon eating Tucker sycophants on this board.

America haters like him, AOC, Ilhan Omar, etc.

No surprise, not gonna make chicken salad with that chicken s h i t.

SA68AG said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

This is a sick *******.

Never in my life have a seen a worse dodge of question.

🚨 UPDATE: In a SHOCKING incident, a young Iranian-American tells MI Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed that his family was hunted and k*lled by the Islamists in Iran — and asks Abdul to CONDEMN the IRGC...

...Abdul refused IN HIS FACE.

"WE'RE DYING."

"You said you didn't want to…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 24, 2026

---

And yet the audience applauded his non-answer. Disgusting.

---

that is what happens you import millions of Muslim jihadis

and communists into the country

AgNav93 said:

---

This guy is going to be a US Senator. We are so lost as a nation. We really are doomed. And we deserve everything that is coming our way.

---

Not all of us deserve it….

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Exactly he knew all of that. Typical lib response…. Try and confuse the crux of the issue as an excuse for the pathetic "answer".

VaterAg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

Defend the America hating muslim.

---

He hates it so much he is running for US Senator.

---

You cannot be this blind…..

Leave your blood feuds in your country of origin when you move to the US. We don't need that *****

FlyRod said:

---

BboroAg said:

---

He may be a Democrat…but the issue at hand is that he is a Muslim…and Muslims just don't mix with the US constitution.

---

Where is Islam or Muslims mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

---

The relevant question is, "where is secular government mentioned in the koran?"

The answer is that it is only mentioned as a target for jihad.

Aggie95 said:

---

Can't stand the guy….but politically speaking, that was a great answer

---

It wasn't an answer at all to the question. You don't have to discuss foreign policy or the United States role in the world to condemn a murderous regime

El-Sayed is an islamis who also supports communism. A member of the red-green alliance. Objective is destroy America and Western Civilization. Pure evil.

Does it really matter if someone doesn't condemn the IRGC? If he condemns them, then what?

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Does it really matter if someone doesn't condemn the IRGC? If he condemns them, then what?

---

Then nothing. Condemnation without subsequent action is just useless emotional banter used to pacify a triggered, angry mob. And even then words alone wouldn't be enough.

The real question is what action should be taken against the IRGC. And El-Sayed's response was clear: He doesn't support regime change.

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

---

I didn't realize that he was only communicating with F16. My bad.

Point being: he COULD sway non-F16 voters who might see it as him standing for America which a LOT of people, on both sides, will have issues with since he's still a Muslim and they aren't exactly known to be non-explosive or terroristy.

Big Al 1992 said:

---

He did the Norm MacDonald joke in real time with that non answer.

---

That guy was an absolute under-the-radar-flying national treasure. RIP

AgNav93 said:

---

This guy is going to be a US Senator. We are so lost as a nation. We really are doomed. And we deserve everything that is coming our way.

---

I don't. I don't vote for these sick ****s.

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

---

I didn't realize that he was only communicating with F16. My bad.

Point being: he COULD sway non-F16 voters who might see it as him standing for America which a LOT of people, on both sides, will have issues with since he's still a Muslim and they aren't exactly known to be non-explosive or terroristy.

---

Fair enough. But note many folks on this thread are upset because he didn't condemn IRGC. Yet we both agree that even if he had, it still would not be enough for the same folks. So what's the point?

And on the greater set of, non F16, US voters, they tend to treat all Muslims as monolithic. And that's a mistake. Just wait until it gets out that Richardson TX, has a Muslim mayor! He also happens to be an aggie, and a (gasp!!) Republican. And he's been doing a great job too.

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

---

I didn't realize that he was only communicating with F16. My bad.

Point being: he COULD sway non-F16 voters who might see it as him standing for America which a LOT of people, on both sides, will have issues with since he's still a Muslim and they aren't exactly known to be non-explosive or terroristy.

---

Fair enough. But note many folks on this thread are upset because he didn't condemn IRGC. Yet we both agree that even if he had, it still would not be enough for the same folks. So what's the point?

And on the greater set of, non F16, US voters, they tend to treat all Muslims as monolithic. And that's a mistake. Just wait until it gets out that Richardson TX, has a Muslim mayor! He also happens to be an aggie, and a (gasp!!) Republican. And he's been doing a great job too.

---

There are differeing degrees to which you can disagree with a person. Personally, I married a person that I sufficiently disagree with politically, but we are both reasonable human beings and thus can find middle ground which we whole-hearetedly agree upon which allows us to have healthy debate and compromise on other issues.

The fact that he obfuscated and could not simply condemn the IRGCs actions says that he and I are diametrically opposed and pretty much have no grounds for reasonable compromise because we cannot agree on the simplest, most obvious evils in the world.

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

---

I didn't realize that he was only communicating with F16. My bad.

Point being: he COULD sway non-F16 voters who might see it as him standing for America which a LOT of people, on both sides, will have issues with since he's still a Muslim and they aren't exactly known to be non-explosive or terroristy.

---

Fair enough. But note many folks on this thread are upset because he didn't condemn IRGC. Yet we both agree that even if he had, it still would not be enough for the same folks. So what's the point?

And on the greater set of, non F16, US voters, they tend to treat all Muslims as monolithic. And that's a mistake. Just wait until it gets out that Richardson TX, has a Muslim mayor! He also happens to be an aggie, and a (gasp!!) Republican. And he's been doing a great job too.

---

The fact that he obfuscated and could not simply condemn the IRGCs actions says that he and I are diametrically opposed and pretty much have no grounds for reasonable compromise because we cannot agree on the simplest, most obvious evils in the world.

---

I think you are giving too much importance to a response to a town hall question. Will you at least agree that he likely privately does not support the IRGC? And despite how he feels privately, do you believe him that he doesn't support regime change? If yes on both, what difference does it make if he condemns them or not if it isn't going to change his policy stance?

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

Surely you are not suggesting that El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he secretly supports them?

---

You would think that he wouldn't support them, Sunni vs Shia, but there really isn't a valid reason not to condemn them, then, is there?

Would it sway several on here? No, of course not. But, pols say stupid **** just to appease people all of the time.

---

Agreed, if it isn't going to sway anyone, what's the point? Who cares if he says "stupid ****" just to appease people or not? Words alone make zero difference.

---

I didn't realize that he was only communicating with F16. My bad.

Point being: he COULD sway non-F16 voters who might see it as him standing for America which a LOT of people, on both sides, will have issues with since he's still a Muslim and they aren't exactly known to be non-explosive or terroristy.

---

Fair enough. But note many folks on this thread are upset because he didn't condemn IRGC. Yet we both agree that even if he had, it still would not be enough for the same folks. So what's the point?

And on the greater set of, non F16, US voters, they tend to treat all Muslims as monolithic. And that's a mistake. Just wait until it gets out that Richardson TX, has a Muslim mayor! He also happens to be an aggie, and a (gasp!!) Republican. And he's been doing a great job too.

---

The fact that he obfuscated and could not simply condemn the IRGCs actions says that he and I are diametrically opposed and pretty much have no grounds for reasonable compromise because we cannot agree on the simplest, most obvious evils in the world.

---

I think you are giving too much importance to a response to a town hall question. Will you at least agree that he likely privately does not support the IRGC? And despite how he feels privately, do you believe him that he doesn't support regime change? If yes on both, what difference does it make if he condemns them or not if it isn't going to change his policy stance?

---

I agree that our average politician is cowardly and should not be given a pass to remain cowardly simply because it is politically convenient. When Trump very publicly did not condemn David Duke, I also vehemently diaagreed with his decision - and without knowing you personally, I'm quite sure you did too.

Abdul El-Sayed is a Muslim who is faithful to Islam, as we have seen, and who is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, as we have also seen.

So now think with me:

If he wins and gains access, as a U.S. senator, to sensitive intelligence, and he…

— Dan Burmawi (@DanBurmawy) September 25, 2026

Abdul El-Sayed is a Muslim who is faithful to Islam, as we have seen, and who is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, as we have also seen.

So now think with me:

If he wins and gains access, as a U.S. senator, to sensitive intelligence, and he finds himself in a position where he has to choose between loyalty to America, the land of the infidels, or loyalty to faithful Muslims fighting for Allah, what do you think he will choose?

You may not know much about Islam, but I do. And I am not talking here about some personal experience that I am generalizing. I am talking about a worldview that transcends time and place.

Muhammad said: "whoever aided an infidel against a Muslim is an infidel himself."

Abdul El-Sayed will betray the United States of America in the service of Allah, and there is absolutely no doubt about this, because choosing America would mean betraying Allah.

Warn your fellow Michiganders and ask them to think a thousand times before sending this faithful citizen of the state of Islam to the U.S. Senate.

VaterAg said:

---

Luigi Vampa said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

stallion6 said:

---

He did not answer the question.

---

He absolutely did. He said we should not be involved in regime change in Iran.

---

The question had absolutely ZERO about regime change. The person who asked the question even clarified his question and specified it was not about regime change.

You can condemn a person or organization and still not support toppling their associated government by force.

But you knew all of that...

---

So what exactly does condemning them get you? Just an emotional warm fuzzy with no actions behind it?

As was pointed out earlier, El-Sayed is a Sunni, so privately he opposes Shia rule in Iran. But he isn't stupid and won't say anything controversial in public.

---

Very telling that you think condemning a regime that murders dissenters and funds terrorism worldwide is "controversial"