Michigan’s Radical Democrat Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed: Football Is "Toxically Masculine” Culture Full of Racism, Misogyny and Homophobia

2 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Michigan’s Radical Democrat Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed: Football Is "Toxically Masculine” Culture Full of Racism, Misogyny and Homophobia

Michigan U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed challenged Republican opponent Mike Rogers to a game of tackle football without pads after Rogers criticized past podcast remarks El-Sayed made regarding football culture. El-Sayed, a former high school football team captain, issued the challenge as a rebuttal instead of a traditional debate. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Looks like someone aborted their ability to use words and form thoughts of their own

.

4 hours ago, sameaglesfan said:

You guys are really trotting out this tired old talking point again? Polls must be worse than I thought

On 8/12/2026 at 8:11 PM, lynched1 said:

Michigan’s Radical Democrat Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed: Football Is "Toxically Masculine” Culture Full of Racism, Misogyny and Homophobia

I have been trying to name our beer league softball team Toxic Masculinity for a couple years now. Always gets shot down.

On 8/12/2026 at 10:59 PM, barho said:

Michigan U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed challenged Republican opponent Mike Rogers to a game of tackle football without pads after Rogers criticized past podcast remarks El-Sayed made regarding football culture. El-Sayed, a former high school football team captain, issued the challenge as a rebuttal instead of a traditional debate. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Do you support El-Sayed?

6 minutes ago, Procus said:

Do you support El-Sayed?

Barhoe doesnt care about Israle at all. He a Isolationist thru & thru.

16 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Looks like someone aborted their ability to use words and form thoughts of their own

Because you and Shaggy are Fing morons who have zero clue how our elections process works. Neither party scrutinizes their own votes during the primaries they way they do during the general elections. The main reason some heavily contested precincts take so long to count, is that each party checks each and every aspect of the voting process to ensure they properly reflect the voters intention. You’re plenty old enough to remember "hanging chads,” however, Domenic may be clouding your memories.

watching procus trying to troll as he supports a kid f'er is cvon gold.

11 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

watching procus trying to troll as he supports a kid f'er is cvon gold.

16 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

Because you and Shaggy are Fing morons who have zero clue how our elections process works. Neither party scrutinizes their own votes during the primaries they way they do during the general elections. The main reason some heavily contested precincts take so long to count, is that each party checks each and every aspect of the voting process to ensure they properly reflect the voters intention. You’re plenty old enough to remember "hanging chads,” however, Domenic may be clouding your memories.

https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2089577124562645295

Do parties scrutinize votes during primary elections?

Yes. In the United States (the most common context for this question), political parties routinely scrutinize votes and election processes during primary elections through appointed poll watchers, observers, and challengers, much as they do in general elections.

Primary elections are generally administered by state and local election officials under state law, not directly run by the parties themselves. However, parties (and often individual candidates) have legal rights to monitor the process. This includes observing ballot casting, equipment testing, signature verification, vote counting/tabulation, and related procedures. Their role is to help ensure fairness, compliance with rules (including party affiliation requirements in closed or semi-closed primaries), and the integrity of the count from their perspective.

Key examples of party involvement

• Poll watchers/observers: Most states allow political parties to appoint partisan poll watchers or challengers for primaries. These individuals watch proceedings (without interfering), may track turnout, report issues, and in some cases challenge voter eligibility (e.g., party affiliation). Specific statutes exist in places like Colorado (parties entitled to watchers at voter service centers, central count facilities, and signature verification), Illinois (parties appoint one pollwatcher per precinct in primaries), and Georgia (party committees designate poll watchers for primaries from candidate-submitted lists).

• Broader observation rights: Parties can often observe machine testing, ballot processing, canvassing, audits, and recounts. In some states, party representatives participate more directly in aspects of primary administration or certification.

• Voter challenges: In closed or semi-closed primaries, challenges frequently focus on whether a voter is properly affiliated with the party whose ballot they seek.

Rules vary significantly by state (and sometimes by party within a state), covering the number of watchers allowed, appointment processes (often by party chairs or committees), qualifications, what they can observe or challenge, and conduct restrictions. Candidates in the primary may also appoint their own watchers in many places. Nonpartisan observers or public observation may also be permitted depending on the jurisdiction.

Parties have a strong interest in primaries because they determine the nominees who appear on the general election ballot. Observation helps protect that process. This is a standard, longstanding feature of U.S. election administration rather than an exceptional practice. International contexts differ, as many countries handle candidate selection through internal party processes with less public voting and different oversight.

13 minutes ago, Procus said:

Disgustingg. Where do u even find thing like this? Is there a site or a Kik group?

Of course the brain dead left wing lunatics who populate this forum will have a zillion excuses why certain Democrat controlled states take days on in to count their votes. And for the brain dead idiot(s) who decided that it's because of general elections, all of these states were able to get their votes counted before midnight of election day, and none of these states are controlled by a Democratic machine:

1. Florida

2. Georgia

3. Indiana

4. Kentucky

5. Missouri

6. North Carolina

7. Ohio

8. South Carolina

9. Tennessee

10. Virginia

11. West Virginia

On 8/18/2026 at 12:58 AM, Procus said:

Do parties scrutinize votes during primary elections?

Yes. In the United States

Cool, now ask grok who won the 2020 election...

9 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Cool, now ask grok who won the 2020 election...

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Now ask grok who committed the fraud, such as coordinating with multiple states to submit false slates of electors.

Gemini disagrees.

No credible evidence has been found to support the claim that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen by fraud.

This conclusion is supported by extensive investigations, audits, and legal reviews across federal, state, and local levels:

* Court Rulings: Over 60 post-election legal challenges brought by Donald Trump and his allies were dismissed or rejected by state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges—many appointed by Republican presidents, including Trump himself—consistently found that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of widespread fraud or misconduct that would affect the outcome.

* Recounts and Audits: Full hand recounts, forensic audits, and risk-limiting audits were conducted in contested battleground states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. None of these reviews found widespread discrepancies, and they repeatedly confirmed the certified vote totals.

* Federal and State Investigations:

* The Department of Justice, led at the time by Attorney General William Barr, concluded after investigating numerous claims that there was no evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could have altered the outcome of the election.

* The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), alongside a coalition of federal and state election officials, issued a joint statement designating the 2020 election as "the most secure in American history".

* Independent and Academic Reviews: Independent journalistic investigations (such as an extensive Associated Press review of disputed states) and academic analyses found only isolated instances of voter irregularity—far too few to have altered the result in any state.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Gemini disagrees.

No credible evidence has been found to support the claim that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen by fraud.

This conclusion is supported by extensive investigations, audits, and legal reviews across federal, state, and local levels:

* Court Rulings: Over 60 post-election legal challenges brought by Donald Trump and his allies were dismissed or rejected by state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges—many appointed by Republican presidents, including Trump himself—consistently found that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of widespread fraud or misconduct that would affect the outcome.

* Recounts and Audits: Full hand recounts, forensic audits, and risk-limiting audits were conducted in contested battleground states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. None of these reviews found widespread discrepancies, and they repeatedly confirmed the certified vote totals.

* Federal and State Investigations:

* The Department of Justice, led at the time by Attorney General William Barr, concluded after investigating numerous claims that there was no evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could have altered the outcome of the election.

* The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), alongside a coalition of federal and state election officials, issued a joint statement designating the 2020 election as "the most secure in American history".

* Independent and Academic Reviews: Independent journalistic investigations (such as an extensive Associated Press review of disputed states) and academic analyses found only isolated instances of voter irregularity—far too few to have altered the result in any state.

Yeah but can we really trust an AI platform that’s not owned by a NSDAP?