Michigan’s far-left radical Muslim Senate Candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, went on a fanatical tirade against some of the nation’s most fundamental elements that decide its representative governance, calling the Electoral College, the congressional filibuster, and even the 9-member makeup of the Supreme Court ‘anti-democratic.” Not coincidentally, the rant comes at a time when Republicans enjoy a majority in each of those areas.
For context on that last comment, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump won both the popular vote and electoral college in 2024 to win the election. Congress was also returned to the Republican Party, and it was Democrat Senator Cory Booker who set a record with a 25-hour filibuster, though he was not engaging in the act to prevent passage of legislation per se. And of course the Supreme Court only just became a conservative majority upon Trump’s first election victory in 2016.
However, since Democrats do not currently enjoy power from those institutions, a common talking point has been to call them either outdated, rooted in racism, or anti-democratic in general. Such was the case when Democrat Senate candidate El-Sayed spoke at length to each of those issues, essentially making a campaign promise to overhaul the federal government.
“I also want to talk about the other ways that they’re coming for democracy. It’s not just your ability to raise your voice; it’s the ability of the democracy to represent you in the first place. Like the idea of the electoral college, let’s be clear: it benefits here in Michigan. We get a lot of attention because of the electoral college, but it’s anti-democratic,” he began in a talk to reporters.
“You think about gerrymandering and the way that we don’t have an objective approach to making sure that communities get the representation they need because of packing and cracking, the fact that we have not passed comprehensive anti-gerrymandering legislation is itself a problem. And then I’ll point to the filibuster in the Senate. Do you know what the filibuster’s principal use was? Segregation,” he stated.
“It was used most principally to defend against the passing of civil rights and voting rights, and it continues to get used in ways that are anti-democratic and against the will of the people, the Supreme Court. Right, the idea that we’ve got these non-elected nine folk who get to, you know, abuse our system, and that we’re not thinking about actually reforming it so it actually fits the moment of the time. That’s a problem,” he continued.
“And then the point that I always talk about is money out of politics. If you spend $70 million lying on somebody and you think that that’s somehow democratic, I’m so sorry. I think we got different ideas of what what democracy is supposed to be like. And the way that these corporations use the money system in politics is to make it so that no matter what side wins, they win. No matter which side wins, if they’re taking DTE money, DTE wins. And we’re all out here being like, how come our rates are up so high?” he went on.
“How come every time the wind blows, we we lose power in five days? Because DTE always wins. Blue Cross always wins. They always win, and they use the system to do it. And so we’ve got to be able to stand up against that as well. So it is passing John Lewis, but it’s also understanding all the ways that they’ve gained our democratic system and our process to take rights away from us around representation and around making democracy work,” he finished.
Watch Abdul El-Sayed criticize American democracy below:
Featured image: Screen shot from embedded video