Shadee Elmasry – BLASTS Mehdi Hasans Kamala Harris Support
AI: Summary ©
The speaker discusses various arguments against President Trump, including Mahdi Hassan, Jalland, Jalland's actions, political and political dynamics of the current cycle, and potential political lobby. They criticize the current president's handling of the situation and argue that the future is predicted to get worse in Trump administration. The speaker also criticizes the current president's handling of the situation and argues that they should not make any mistake. The speaker discusses the mentality of the future and how it can be changed by past behavior, and criticizes the current president's handling of the situation and the Republican party trying to convince the president to get worse.
AI: Summary ©
Have you guys followed Imam Tom versus Mehdi
Hassan?
I haven't yet seen the interview that Imam
Tom did with Mohammed Jalland.
See, Mehdi Hassan is from a dying breed,
I would say, of Democrat loyalists.
I'm not totally against everything Mehdi Hassan does.
First, he has, he serves the Muslim identity.
I think in this, in Islam itself, he
never talks about that.
So let's leave that alone, right, because the
guy is a Shia in the first place.
So, but leave that alone because the guy,
I don't even know if he believes in
that.
He never talks about theology, so we're not
gonna go there.
We just went there, but, right, but anyway,
leave that alone.
He has been a very good debater, I
would say, in most of his causes on
Islam, Muslim identity, etc.
So, overall, it's, I'm not so harsh on
people, right, when they do a lot of,
they have a lot of good positions.
On Palestine, he's been very strong, I have
to say.
His debate, who did he debate?
Pierce Morgan, debated a lot of people, right?
His clips always come up and I'm impressed
with them.
So, I'm not totally, like, out to destroy
the guy.
I don't have that attitude towards Mehdi Hassan.
I do believe that the Democrat loyalty is
dying amongst Muslims.
Like, you're getting laughed at.
If you're one of these people, you will
get laughed at.
He said, and their argument is that, how
could you allow Trump to be president?
He's gonna be far worse.
I have two arguments against that.
The first argument is that what you see
now takes priority over what may happen in
the future.
When I'm making any decision, this, what's happening
now, is a certainty.
You are aiding and abetting killing.
In the future, what may happen in the
future is also highly likely, no doubt about
that, highly likely, but we just don't know
it.
It's not certain.
And ask any Egyptian, because every Egyptian says,
anybody would have been better than Mubarak.
Ask any Libyan, anyone better than Senussi, way
back in the day, in the 50s, right?
Ask anyone, and Iraq, anyone but Saddam.
Yeah, and you got that, all three of
you.
Anyone but Hafez al-Assad in Syria.
Bashar al-Assad's worse.
So, the mentality that we can pass a
judgment on the future, it always fails.
So, that's number one.
Number two, if we're gonna be honest, and
people really hate this line, the best predictor
for future behavior is past behavior.
Trump has already been president.
It's not like we're, you're putting in an
unknown firecracker.
He's a firecracker and he's nuts and all
that stuff, fine, we get that.
But this is not an unknown.
You saw what his past presidency looked like,
and we didn't see a lot of bloodshed.
That's the truth.
We didn't even see a wall.
The 2% of it was built.
We didn't see a Muslim ban except for
a temporary thing that they had on five
countries that had terrorist organizations in them.
It wasn't like a blanket Muslim ban.
But that's why I think that that's the
argument that's made against the pro-Harris approach,
right?
Those are the two arguments.
Facts.
He essentially said that if you punish Democrats
this time, you can fix Democrats.
The summary of argument is this.
Democrats can be, their behavior can change, can
be changed.
Republican behavior is fixed.
There is no point in dealing with Republicans.
They are fixed on this subject.
But you can injure a Democrat, their percentage
and their elections in this cycle, and maybe
their behavior will change.
That's a great point too.
The Democrats, when you do give them loyalty,
they'll never listen to you again.
You are just like a lackey.
You're just a doormat.
You get abused and you still are there
for them.
That's a type of abused person.
And my opinion is that neither side is
any different on Israel.
That's my belief.
Neither side has a different philosophy towards the
lobby.
You still don't know what each president would
do.
I think Biden in office, it seemed to
me, was almost like an absentee presidency.
Let's look at what this person says.
Mohammed Shazly says, you're applying too many what
-ifs to Mahdi Hassan.
Think about what's happening every day under this
current administration, who's already supported genocide at the
fullest scale, versus who may make it worse.
I don't see how it can get any
worse.
See, I'll never, that's not a correct thing
to say.
That last line, delete it.
Now Mahdi Hassan says, it can't get worse.
Of course it can.
Every day it's getting worse, 100%.
You think that in two years it's not
gonna be worse than today?
It will because Israel can't put this genie
back in the bottle.
They have to keep going.
It will get worse in the Trump administration,
almost 99% sure.
Not because of the presidency here.
Irrelevant of the presidency.
Whether it's Harris or Trump, the next year
will be worse.
The year after that will probably be worse.
Probably until 2030 or for another decade.
Daniel Dunbarl says, don't vote for Stein because
Trump might win and the genocide might get
worse.
Vote instead for the party under which we
already know the genocide has continually gotten worse.
Which is basically the same idea as, what
is, is greater than, what if.
Principle versus making compromises for political gain.
Like, is there a middle ground or is
it, do we have to be, is there
a certain threshold of principles that need to
be upheld?
I'm gonna say that there's no set answer
to this.
There's no set answer.
The future always tells you whether you decided
right or wrong.
Yeah.
With the Democratic Party, like a lot of
brothers and sisters got involved with the Democrats.
Yeah.
They made compromises on certain issues and it
didn't really lead to much, right?
It's almost as if when you compromise on
certain issues, it's as if you get, you're
gonna get embarrassed regardless.
Yeah.
Whether you make that compromise or not, these
people already have formed You're losing either way.
Yeah, but in one version of that story,
you're also losing your own morality and your
own rectitude.
Whereas in the other, sure, you're still gonna
be on the sidelines, but at least now
you're on the sidelines and people know what
your positions are and they can respect you
for at least being I've always liked the
philosophy of not trying to bend or please
anybody.
And the only way that, the only people
that you, it doesn't mean I like to
offend somebody.
There's a difference.
There's a difference between changing yourself to please
somebody versus intentionally offend other people because people
usually conflate that.
I don't try to please anyone.
Yeah, but you're offending now.
The line for that is you are allowed
to offend the people who are trying to
kill you.
That's the difference between a lot of people
who quote unquote say the truth and other
people who they really use the truth as
a way to offend others.
Okay, let's take a look at some Q
&A here.
What's, what's my position regarding someone who's already
embedded in the Democratic Party and is trying
to make headway?
He should continue, but don't tell us and
try to convince us that Harris of all
people who has like, what has she done
in politics that's any, that would indicate any
future behavior, right?
Trump does have an indicator of his behavior,
which is that it's always much less than
his words.
That is, we have facts on that.
We have demonstration on that.
And I'm not obviously pro-Trump, but what
do we have from Harris?
Wait, why do we have to ask?
She's already in office.
I only think that the pro-Harris campaign
is a total lose.
The abandoned Harris, abandoned Biden, abandoned Harris campaign
is principled for sure.
And it's likely to not have any great
political impact.
Even the Democrats are bound by the Israeli
money, Israeli AIPAC money.
I think they're just going to have to
bite the bullet and say, all right, we
lost the Muslims.
That's it.
They can't go without the money.
They can't offend the AIPAC too much for
the Israel level.