Ezra got this one exactly right, and a lot of you are betraying a total inability to tell the difference between "this person went about the process of advocating for his beliefs in the right way" and "his beliefs are correct."

Police called on 3 year old Black boy—for being "too good" at soccer. Officers escorted his family away in front of all the other kids. After league had them tresspassed from the field. “They really called the police on a 3 year old because he had the ball too much," dad said. The young athlete was already playing in a league with kids 2 years older than him. Other parents on the opposing team are heard on video claiming the kid was "trying to put on a show." His mom replied, "Those grown ups huddled up talking about my son... but he ain't doing nothing but playing soccer." Incident occurred at an i9 Sports league soccer game in Winter Park, Florida. Nevadaney10⁠ doesn’t have an active account on this platform—so posting first full length and credited video here to help raise awareness.

Does the left understand how ridiculous it looks to claim anti-Sayed Democrats are more loyal to Israel than America, while simultaneously claiming that any inquiry into El-Sayed’s very real links to the Muslim Brotherhood is an unwarranted attack on his patriotism?

I worked for Obama twice. Never voted for Trump. I’m supporting Mike Rogers in Michigan. El-Sayed’s positions on Israel and American security cross a line for me. Party loyalty has limits. dorybenami.substack.com/p/wh…

Does Obama not understand that to most Americans the Cheesecake Factory is a very nice and fancy restaurant?

Does the left understand how ridiculous it looks to claim anti-Sayed Democrats are more loyal to Israel than America, while simultaneously claiming that any inquiry into El-Sayed’s very real links to the Muslim Brotherhood is an unwarranted attack on his patriotism?

As I understand it, this debate is fundamentally about how well El-Sayed needs to do, in order to undermine the conventional wisdom that moderation is electorally expedient, all else equal. Hasan suggests that El-Sayed could achieve this, even if he performs worse than moderate swing-state Senate candidates or Democrats nationally. This is because El-Sayed 1) is a relative newcomer to statewide politics, 2) pays an electoral penalty for being Muslim, and 3) is having an unusually large amount of money spent against him. A few thoughts on that argument/the broader debate: • El-Sayed does have some real, non-ideological disadvantages. But I also think he has some non-ideological assets. For example, he seems more charismatic than the average Democratic Senate candidate. And I feel like Hasan would probably second that assessment. But if so, then that needs to be entered into the equation: If Abdul is an unusually gifted messenger, then he might make public buy-in for his ideology look *more widespread* than it actually is. In theory, charisma might buy him a percentage point or two that might not be available to a more generic progressive, all else equal. (Many leftists made precisely this case with Obama, arguing that his personal gifts inflated the apparent appeal of his center-left politics). In other words: The more Islamophobic you think America is, the more you need to grade Abdul on a curve, when assessing the appeal of his ideology. And yet, by the same token, the more charismatic you deem him to be, the more you need to adjust expectations in the other direction. • The amount of opposition spending that El-Sayed has attracted is not exogenous to his ideological positioning. When Yglesias raised this point, Hasan channeled it into a moral debate: Should Democrats be willing to stand for what's right, even if deep-pocketed interests oppose them? I think they should, as a general matter. But it's also important to separate questions of fact from questions of principle. If we are trying to evaluate the empirical proposition, "Progressives are as electable (if not more) than moderates," then the fact that prof attract more opposition spending would cut against the premise; at least, if we think that campaign spending is somewhat effective (which is implicit in the belief that money in politics is a significant problem). • This said, progressives seem very good at raising money in the modern era. And I think there are diminishing returns on campaign spending. Further, the pro-Israel/reactionary business lobbies probably won't ever be willing to spend against all Dems the way they have against Abdul. • It's true that Cooper and Peltola are longtime, popular politicians in their states while El-Sayed is not. But in principle, this could itself reflect the center-left's broader political appeal. Presumably, Cooper and Peltola's ideological positioning isn't irrelevant to their success at becoming popular politicians in solidly red states. • Ultimately, we can't draw strong conclusions about the political appeal of any ideological program by looking at a single Senate race. There are too many uncontrolled variables. • But there is a substantial body of empirical evidence that moderate candidates outperform progressive ones. vox.com/politics/462912/trum… • There is also a strong logical basis for believing this would be true. The progressive movement (like all ideological traditions) did not pick the majority of its issue positions by gauging their electoral appeal. Rather, the positions flow from the movement's ideological principles and the interests of its allied organizations. It would be an extraordinary coincidence if those positions happened to also be the most electorally expedient for Democrats to adopt, even though they were not selected on that basis. • Given this, if you define every candidate who breaks with progressive orthodoxy on several issues as a "moderate," then the Democrats who cater the most to majoritarian opinion are going to end up concentrated in the "moderate" bin. In the aggregate, that group is probably going to win elections more reliably. • This does not mean that all moderates are more electable than all progressives. The point is just that ideological flexibility is advantageous. And every ideological tradition accrues unpopular commitments. A Democrat who faithfully upheld the principles of pro-tech, neoliberal globalism -- championing data center development, mass immigration, and Social Security cuts -- would probably do pretty bad. In practice though, there are more moderate political opportunists than militant left-neoliberals in politics. • All this said, progressives can and do engage in strategic moderation. For instance, El-Sayed has endorsed freezing property taxes for seniors. That's a bad policy imo -- and one with little progressive support. But it's probably electorally sound. Whether he's therefore justified in taking the stance is a separate question. • Reasonable people can disagree about how to balance political expediency against substantive virtue. It's an incredibly thorny question. But when answering it for ourselves, we should do our best to ascertain what the relevant tradeoffs actually are.

This is true. But a reminder: Golden State still has a great defense, a great coach, and a great player in Gabby Williams. While the Dream seems to be on a run like the Knicks had last year, I expect them to go down swinging. The Dream knows this. Series ain't over.

Gutfeld: You support this? You want more Muslims in positions of power?

Can’t wait for this election to be over, crying about bigotry while also being a bigot is not the flex some of y’all think it is.

This week’s newsletter: I wrote about the GOPs strategy of Islamophobia has been aided by Democrats and the press. And I find the lack of pushback not only immoral but shortsighted. We either all have a place in democracy or we don’t. And the forces seeking to marginalize their place in the American project will likely expand to others On @voxdotcom: vox.com/politics/507163/midt…

The police officer who shot and killed 1-year-old Kohen Wiley outside a Walmart in Mississippi has resigned from the department news3lv.com/news/nation-worl…

President Trump strongly defends Vivek Ramaswamy’s ad featuring Amy Acton’s estranged mom. Trump: “That took a lot of courage to do but, essentially, what she was really doing was saving Ohio from making a truly horrible choice! The Press is trying to convince everyone that this Ad is bad, because it’s so good! Who wouldn’t use such an Ad? I would, it’s called, ‘hitting pay dirt.’”