VaterAg said:

---

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 mayor that was founding board member of the outlawed TexAM University that was an Islamic AI, Cybersecurity, Health and Economic school. That mayor?

LOL. Keep pushing this muslim misinformation.

I won’t be lectured on inflating experiences by someone who exaggerated her CIA role and is supporting Abdul, who famously has never seen a patient but has too big of an ego to stop introducing himself as “doctor.”

The reality is that I worked at Cars and Concepts — an auto… https://t.co/2mjJ51FSJj pic.twitter.com/BXo1p6ZPR5

— Mike Rogers (@MikeRogersForMI) September 26, 2026

El-Sayed, a Sunni, refuses to publicly condemn the IRGC because he effectively supports them.

Sunni Hamas is supported by Shia Iran

They may not like each other, but you know who they hate more?

The mystics simply cannot win.

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.

---

Well, neither do democrats. See SDA they want to trash it. And they run as democrats in elections

BboroAg said:

---

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?

---

They're not….who said they were? Hint: sharia law is anti-American, anti-US constitution

---

Yeah but this bunch cant see that despite 50 years of history, experience, and evidence. Ideology before reality. The left is truly insane in this nation at this time. This is just more proof. The disconnect from logic and experience is truly terrifying

spacemanspiff said:

---

Take this stuff back to the middle east

---

We're getting drawn into muslim tribal war.

Look how cool he's trying to be in the way he dresses and the crouch down. The left almost exclusively votes for the cool factor or charisma of any kind. They can't vote on substance so it has to be the cool factor.

ts5641 said:

---

Look how cool he's trying to be in the way he dresses and the crouch down. The left almost exclusively votes for the cool factor or charisma of any kind. They can't vote on substance so it has to be the cool factor.

---

It's an emotional, not logical, approach to voting- hmm. Obama says thank you very much for

Quote:

---

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.

---

Abdul is just like Barry.... neither are good for America.

" I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction"

BMX Bandit 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.

---

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

---

Indeed

BMX Bandit 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.

---

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

---

The question was not about funding worldwide terrorism. You are moving the goalposts.

It's only non-controversial because you would agree with a statement condeming the IRGC. But what if he condemned the killing of innocent people in Gaza? And then followed up with "we are going to let the Palestinians deal with it we will take no further action", would you find it controversial?

In both cases he is lamenting the loss of innocent lives. And yes, many Hamas terrorists died in Gaza, I'm not talking about them. I'm just talking about innocent people, who had nothing to do with Hamas, who got caught in the crossfire simply because of where they live. It's not like they actively chose to be born there or live there.

Luigi Vampa said:

---

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.

---

Did you still vote for Trump even though he didn't condemn David Duke? If you did, then what did you do differently because he didn't condemn him and you vehemently disagreed?

I didn't care one bit whether Trump condemned him or not. I had even forgotten that was even "an isdue" until your reminder.

Double post..my bad, typing on a phone.

VaterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit 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.

---

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

---

It's only non-controversial because you would agree with that hypothetical statement. But what if he condemned the killing of innocent people in Gaza? But then followed up with "we are going to let the Palestinians deal with it", would you find it controversial?

In both cases he is lamenting the loss of innocent lives. And yes, many Hamas terrorists died in Gaza, I'm not talking about them. I'm just talking about innocent people, who had nothing to do with Hamas, who got caught in the crossfire simply because of where they live. It's not like they actively chose to be born there or live there.

---

There is a great tendency to ascribe innocence to people acting, willingly or not, as human shields for Hamas. And then there's the majority of Gazans that have been brainwashed to hate Jews to the point of seeking to murder the very people that saved her life. Just because their death is tragic does not make them innocent and, even if innocent it is not a war crime if they are unintentionally killed while in close proximity to a jihadi terrorist.

⚠️ WARNING: GRAPHIC RAW FOOTAGE ⚠️

This is Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, from Jabalia, walking toward the hospital that kept her alive with about twenty pounds of explosives sewn into her clothes.

In late 2004, a gas canister blew in her home and burned her badly. Israel took her… pic.twitter.com/YCoKahXu0Q

— Mor Edge Insight (@MorEdge_Insight) September 25, 2026

Ulysses90 said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit 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.

---

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

---

It's only non-controversial because you would agree with that hypothetical statement. But what if he condemned the killing of innocent people in Gaza? But then followed up with "we are going to let the Palestinians deal with it", would you find it controversial?

In both cases he is lamenting the loss of innocent lives. And yes, many Hamas terrorists died in Gaza, I'm not talking about them. I'm just talking about innocent people, who had nothing to do with Hamas, who got caught in the crossfire simply because of where they live. It's not like they actively chose to be born there or live there.

---

There is a great tendency to ascribe innocence to people acting, willingly or not, as human shields for Hamas. And then there's the majority of Gazans that have been brainwashed to hate Jews to the point of seeking to murder the very people that saved her life. Just because their death is tragic does not make them innocent and, even if innocent it is not a war crime if they are unintentionally killed while in close proximity to a jihadi terrorist.

⚠️ WARNING: GRAPHIC RAW FOOTAGE ⚠️

This is Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss, from Jabalia, walking toward the hospital that kept her alive with about twenty pounds of explosives sewn into her clothes.

In late 2004, a gas canister blew in her home and burned her badly. Israel took her… pic.twitter.com/YCoKahXu0Q

— Mor Edge Insight (@MorEdge_Insight) September 25, 2026

---

Thanks. I think you are agreeing that you would find such a statement controversial.

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

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 mayor that was founding board member of the outlawed TexAM University that was an Islamic AI, Cybersecurity, Health and Economic school. That mayor?

LOL. Keep pushing this muslim misinformation.

---

What misinformation did I "push"? That he is an aggie? Or a republican? Or maybe that he was doing a good job? Those are the only three statements I made about him.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Sorry that 50k Iranians were murdered protesting your government, bro, but did you ever consider that we should let Iranians decide their own future?

---

They aren't decided to get nuclear weapons while they chant death to America at every government function

---

How many of you would chant with an AK47 and a murderous, soulless zealot with his finger on the trigger standing behind you and your children?

Please, the Islamists would slit every American throat and detonate nukes in every major US city if given the chance. Their "religion" demands it.

I guess it has to happen before people wake the hell up.

VaterAg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

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 mayor that was founding board member of the outlawed TexAM University that was an Islamic AI, Cybersecurity, Health and Economic school. That mayor?

LOL. Keep pushing this muslim misinformation.

---

What misinformation did I "push"? That he is an aggie? Or a republican? Or maybe that he was doing a good job? Those are the only three statements I made about him.

---

Nobody in their right mind believes a Muslim that has ties to and loyalty to CAIR.

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

VaterAg said:

---

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 mayor that was founding board member of the outlawed TexAM University that was an Islamic AI, Cybersecurity, Health and Economic school. That mayor?

LOL. Keep pushing this muslim misinformation.

---

What misinformation did I "push"? That he is an aggie? Or a republican? Or maybe that he was doing a good job? Those are the only three statements I made about him.

---

Nobody in their right mind believes a Muslim that has ties to and loyalty to CAIR.

---

It starts and ends with this. Islam is a cancer by itself, then you throw in CAIR.

This is probably the greatest advertisement for Mike Rogers. I hope he defeats Abdul El-Sayed on 11/3.

Exactly. I'm very red but condemning doesn't do dick.

Ulysses90 said:

---

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.

---

I've never heard this,

So, I had to look up the exact quote (reproduced as written if anyone else is similarly interested):

Quote:

---

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease buy by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be pease upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man's hand against him.

...................................

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions. The fundamental doctrine of the christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. . . . The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.

---

-from The American Annual Register Vol 3: For the Years 1827-8-9; Part 1

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Sorry that 50k Iranians were murdered protesting your government, bro, but did you ever consider that we should let Iranians decide their own future?

---

He could have said that even after condemning the atrocities the Irania terroristic government leaders perpetrated.
The FACT THAT HE WOULD NOT CONDEMN THE ATROCITIES SAYS IT ALL ABOUT HIS MORALES.
He has only contempt for America and it's citizens.

Aggie95 said:

---

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

---

I disagree, there is nothing wrong with condemning Iran's murderous behavior, it is immaterial whether one advocates nonintervention when related to evil murderous behavior.

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.

---

That wasn't the question.

Tramp96 said:

---

I know someone who is a native Iranian that moved to the US in the 70's and became a US citizen, but still has family and friends back in Iran.

He's also a liberal Democrat.

He contradicts himself constantly. He hated the regime, but hated that Trump first promised the Iranians to take it out, and then didn't. But then when Trump did, he wasn't happy about it either, because he's become so brainwashed by the dems and libs here that everything Trump does is bad, even if it's something he wants done. So he finds fault with the how, or the when, or the why.

It's crazy to watch.

---

Where I exercise there are quite a few Iranians. All of them have relatives in Iran and uniformly condemn the Iranian regime. Most haven't heard from their relatives in months.

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 gives a clear window into the tightly held beliefs, ethics, honesty and morals of that POS El Sayed.

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.

---

I believe you thought your statement was a funny quip, it wasn't. We already have congressmen that hate America, the most prominent long term is Bernie Sanders.

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.

---

Word salad bull****, his non response shows moral character. The fact that it may or may not change any voters mind is not germane.

El Sayed threatens to 'whoop Bill Maher's ass' over unspecified terrible things he has said, DSA Dem propagandist F Chuck Todd accepts vague threats.

This is who/what Democrats are. The party of violence, hate, lies, open borders, islamification and bidenflation. Among other things.

VaterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit 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.

---

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

---

The question was not about funding worldwide terrorism. You are moving the goalposts.

It's only non-controversial because you would agree with a statement condeming the IRGC. But what if he condemned the killing of innocent people in Gaza? And then followed up with "we are going to let the Palestinians deal with it we will take no further action", would you find it controversial?

In both cases he is lamenting the loss of innocent lives. And yes, many Hamas terrorists died in Gaza, I'm not talking about them. I'm just talking about innocent people, who had nothing to do with Hamas, who got caught in the crossfire simply because of where they live. It's not like they actively chose to be born there or live there.

---

Comparing " innocent people, who had nothing to do with Hamas, who got caught in the crossfire", which is regrettable, with the tens of thousands of protesters assassinated in the streets AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS HUNG BY THE IRGC IN THE STREETS is totally wrong. I truly feel sorry you can not see these obvious differences.

Leland Vittert thought he was going to tell a story of redemption when he went to Gaza to interview Wafa Sultan. Instead, he found a (incompetent) killing machine that has been indoctrinates to remorselessly kill the infidels. These are the people and this is the mentality that El Sayed refuses to condemn.

If this doesn’t shake you and open your eyes, then you’re simply too far gone with blind hatred, and have no place at any table to even have an opinion.

The people who sent her weren’t some mystery faction in a tunnel. They were Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. That is Fatah. That is… https://t.co/yXasVwu6DB pic.twitter.com/P7kUW4N3JK

— Mor Edge Insight (@MorEdge_Insight) September 26, 2026

Please tell me the people of Michigan aren't this ****ing stupid!