Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Abdul El-Sayed is a 32-year-old physician, Rhodes Scholar and became youngest person to lead a major American city’s health department when, at the age of 30, he was brought in to rebuild Detroit’s Health Department after the city went bankrupt.
"There’s been a deep curtailing of our civil liberties, starting with the Patriot Act and the large bureaucracy that's been built to surveil people who are just trying to live their lives,” El-Sayed said
That is enough to scratch him off my list. The "bureaucracy that's been built to surveil people" is to look for potential terrorists. So far we have managed to dodge another serious attack but they seem to be happening in Europe with increasing regularity.
That is enough to scratch him off my list. The "bureaucracy that's been built to surveil people" is to look for potential terrorists. So far we have managed to dodge another serious attack but they seem to be happening in Europe with increasing regularity.
I sincerely HOPE he is our next governor..
Any surveillance of innocent people (not proven guilty) is a crime against the people and flagrant disrespect of our Constitutional RIGHTS.
Anything is possible. This is not likely. The fact he is Muslim is irrelevant to me. His naivete and policy statements (such as they are - which is not much) cause me to hope he is not elected.
Despite I do not care, the fact he is Muslm will matter in the election, or more so the fact he has a name that sounds like a terrorist's name to many people. A non-presidential year (Detroit will not vote). An extreme leftest, too young to have acquired wisdom. Probably no chance in hell, but stranger things have happened.
It will not matter much, if he were to be elected, he would not be able to do anything in an otherwise Republican controlled state. We would have a stagnant government which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Any surveillance of innocent people (not proven guilty) is a crime against the people and flagrant disrespect of our Constitutional RIGHTS.
actually "surveillance" of people not proven guilty is sort of how bad people are often caught. Its often part of how they are proven guilty. But if you prefer a world where organized crime is the norm I guess we see things differently.
If you could give me a list of civil liberties you think you lost since the Patriot Act I would appreciate it.
Last edited by craig11152; 09-19-2017 at 08:33 AM..
actually "surveillance" of people not proven guilty is sort of how bad people are often caught. Its often part of how they are proven guilty. But if you prefer a world where organized crime is the norm I guess we see things differently.
If you could give me a list of civil liberties you think you lost since the Patriot Act I would appreciate it.
* FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.
* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
* FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
* FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
* RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
* RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
My phone is being recorded, my email is collected and cataloged, I cannot fly without special documents, I am subject to search upon demand with out due cause or process, I am threatened and oppressed when I refuse to stand for the colonial anthem, my purchases of certain items are recorded and limited...
But I digress by allowing myself to be taken in on a trolling expedition when the subject is the viability of a Muslim candidate in a state /. country that is suffering from unfounded ISLAMOPHOBIA...
The rounding up and surveillance of Japaneses Americans was WRONG then and it is even more WRONG TODAY!
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin
1. The liberty to not be spied upon: Essential to a free society — at least as the founders of the United States saw it — was the freedom to be left alone. In the not too distant past, government agencies suspicious of citizens had to obtain warrants to investigate private citizens. They had to prove to a judge why they deserved to violate a person’s sacrosanct privacy from the State. Though surveillance programs were in place long before 9/11, the tragedy enabled much more far-reaching impositions. Multiple federal agencies — most notably the NSA — are enabled to surveil citizens, all the time — all around the world. The government’s paranoid desire for total surveillance has only grown since 9/11. The FBI, which built the NSA’s foundation for dragnet spying, continuously throws temper tantrums over its inability to spy on encrypted communications. The Department of “Justice” argued just this week that it should have access to all Americans’ emails. A separate court recently ruled that a case challenging NSA bulk data collection could not move forward because the plaintiff could not prove — due to government secrecy — that he was being surveilled.
2. The liberty to not be harassed by law enforcement: The federal government’s total surveillance state is a direct consequence of 9/11 — or rather, the political exploitation of it. However, at the local level, police departments not only conduct their own invasive spying with secret technology provided by the federal government — they pose a far greater danger. Where police officers were once trusted to protect life, they now threaten it. Currently, the risk of being killed by a police officer is anywhere from eight to 55 times greater than being killed by a terrorist. In 2015, police are on track to kill 1,100 Americans — and since 9/11, have killed more than died that day. This year, it was revealed that Chicago’s Homan Square operated as a black site without due process but replete with torture. Other violations by police, constitutionally speaking, include a basic protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. This makes unauthorized cavity searches on the side of the road and civil asset forfeiture — a policy by which police have stolen millions of dollars from unaccused citizens — an egregious seizure of the freedoms Americans still drunkenly celebrate on national holidays. Checkpoints, anyone?
3. The freedom of movement and travel without being treated like a criminal: Considering how traumatized the collective American populace continues to be by incessant, repeated clips of two planes flying into the World Trade Center, it is unsurprising that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), formed after 9/11, is accepted as a vital element of modern society. Millions of Americans routinely huddle in cramped airport security lines, removing their shoes and flashing their private parts to security agents via X-ray machines so as to avoid more invasive gropings. Recently, two agents were caught tag-teaming to grope attractive women. Theft of passenger belongings runs rampant among officers. Racial profiling is allowed by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA. Unsurprisingly, these practices fail to find terrorists 95% of the time. Meanwhile, children in wheelchairs, the elderly, and otherwise innocent Americans are forced to endure what would amount to sexual harassment in any other environment. But rest assured, if travelers pay a special fee, they can bypass security lines. For your safety.
4. Freedom of Speech: While no one (that the government admits to) has been black-bagged for criticizing the government yet, the State has spent years incrementally criminalizing this fundamental right. In addition to designating anti-government activists, hippie communes, and Americans with seed libraries as potential terrorists, the federal government has made a habit of punishing individuals who attempt to shed light on the government’s crimes. From Bradley (Chelsea) Manning to Edward Snowden and countless others, those who attempt to inform the American people of the atrocities their government commits are promptly silenced. Though the story received little mainstream attention, the military’s new operating procedures condone killing journalists. Further, the people’s right to free speech has been widely suppressed. During the Bush years, protesters were cordoned off into “free speech zones” to air their grievances. Today, protests are heavily patrolled by police, who do not shy away from pestering — if not abusing — people peacefully exercising their most essential constitutional right.
5. The liberty to simply know what the government does: When President Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008, he decried George W. Bush’s cloak of secrecy shrouding government actions. Obama vowed to be more transparent, to make the government truly work for the people by allowing them to know what it does. His presidency is almost over, but any echo of that sentiment has been silenced. His administration, self-designated the “most transparent in history,” is one of the least transparent and denies more Freedom of Information Act requests than ever. Lawmakers refuse to reveal details of foreign policy, surveillance, and more, citing “national security” as a blanket excuse. This justification is how they perpetuated continued warrantless spying even after the Patriot Act expired. It is how they have instigated perpetual war with little explanation beyond “grave threats” to the American people. To say more would be to endanger the people further, of course. Whenever politicians feel threatened by real questions, they need only parrot the need for “public safety” and drum up memories of 9/11 to shirk accountability.
6. The liberty to not be harassed by the military in your own home: Many people view the third amendment as archaic. The Revolutionary War is long over and soldiers are no longer “quartered.” However, one specific program — mutated after 9/11 — allows this violation on a daily basis. Following last year’s protests in Ferguson against police brutality, the Pentagon’s 1033 program has faced intense scrutiny for arming local police with high-powered military gear, from armored vehicles to battle regalia. This program has emboldened SWAT teams and other local police — paramilitary wings of law enforcement armed to the teeth — to increasingly raid the homes of private citizens. “But they’re criminals!” loyalists might cry. But what about when they aren’t? Often, SWAT teams raid the wrong addresses, but even when they are in the right place, they inflict everything from beatings and murder on non-violent, often innocent citizens to shooting family pets. The 1033 program, intended to help fight the Drug War, increased in power after 9/11 — when its stated goal shifted toward preventing terrorism.
7. The right to a fair trial: When the near-mythical “founding fathers” crafted the Constitution, one of their greatest revolutions was ensuring fair trials to the accused. This banned cruel and unusual punishment while ensuring a speedy trial where the defendant was considered innocent until proven guilty — not the other way around, as had been practiced by despotic regimes throughout human history. However, this right to a fair trial has been increasingly eroded by autocratic elements within the so-called justice system, especially since 9/11. An Irish judge recently refused to extradite a terror suspect to the United States, citing fears he would endure cruel and unusual punishment. “Death by firing squad!” many patriots mourning 9/11 might chant. He is a terrorist, after all, and “innocent until proven guilty” is a moniker of the weak and those hell-bent on seeing Americans murdered.
But what about the American citizens presumed guilty before an actual verdict is reached? Prosecutors have been criticized for exercising racism in jury selection, biasing courts in favor of conviction. One mentally ill black man died languishing away in prison for months — awaiting a (non-speedy) trial for allegedly stealing less than five dollars worth of snacks from a convenience store. In more high-profile cases, the government and media go out of their way to ensure defendants are presumed guilty long before their trials start. Such was the case with Ross Ulbricht (where FBI agents were found to have committed criminal acts during investigations and key evidence was suppressed). Chelsea Manning and others have faced similar fates. The government also actively campaigns against activists attempting to educate jurors about their rights. None of these violations of due process compete with the indefinite detention provision of the 2012-present National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Language found in Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA allows the president to order the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, merely for being suspected of being a threat to national security.
8. The liberty of owning your body: Though not codified in the Constitution, a basic premise of liberty is self-ownership — that free individuals may choose what they want to do with and put in their bodies. Though the Drug War has been in full swing for decades, the events of 9/11 allowed the government to regulate people’s body chemistry more heavily. While the Patriot Act is widely associated with unwarranted surveillance — as it should be — it was used overwhelmingly to prosecute non-violent drug “crimes” and has helped to create the world’s largest prison population, because…freedom?
9. Economic liberty: While the state places many restrictions on economic freedom, it has done so for centuries through taxation, fees, fines, and regulations that favor corporations (such as the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership). Still, these policies have not been contingent on the 9/11 terror attacks. What 9/11 has allowed, however, are increased piles of tax dollars to fund military adventures throughout the world. Though the military chronically eats up trillions of dollars, every year it demands more money — and nearly every year it gets it. Without the jarring images of 9/11 branded into Americans’ brains, the military would have a much more difficult time securing funding. Those who disagree with such expenditures (whether out of fiscal responsibility or outrage at endless violence) must square off with the IRS — an entity more terrifying to most Americans than the government’s more murderous agencies.
He came and spoke to the local Democratic club in my town. He was about as inspirational as a bad sitcom character. After spending about 10 minutes talking about how how fantastic he is, how smart he is, and literally going around trying to use babies for "Aww"s, he finally started getting to the substance of his speech. His entire speech was nothing but Identity Politics and doom, DooM, DOOM! And he's clearly the only way to fix the doom . He tried to claim Snyder has destroyed the state economy, which, while Snyder has made some questionable choices the economy of today has vastly recovered over the economy of 8 years ago, even I (a liberal) can admit that. Then he talked about the Flint water thing for about 10 minutes, exaggerating, making things up, and just straight-up lying. And being that I happen to know a bit more about that topic than the average person (and wayyy more than he does), trust me, he was lying purely to foment dissent.
He was really quite appalling to listen to; an awful candidate that does not deserve the support of anyone.
I won't vote for Schuette as I think that guy is easily the most corrupt person in Lansing today and he has no hesitation in ruining another person's life in order to get personal gain, but I certainly won't vote for El-Sayed either. I'll write in Duggan or just leave the thing blank, because screw those guys. They are everything that makes me think the political world is a lost cause.
He came and spoke to the local Democratic club in my town. He was about as inspirational as a bad sitcom character. After spending about 10 minutes talking about how how fantastic he is, how smart he is, and literally going around trying to use babies for "Aww"s, he finally started getting to the substance of his speech. His entire speech was nothing but Identity Politics and doom, DooM, DOOM! And he's clearly the only way to fix the doom . He tried to claim Snyder has destroyed the state economy, which, while Snyder has made some questionable choices the economy of today has vastly recovered over the economy of 8 years ago, even I (a liberal) can admit that. Then he talked about the Flint water thing for about 10 minutes, exaggerating, making things up, and just straight-up lying. And being that I happen to know a bit more about that topic than the average person (and wayyy more than he does), trust me, he was lying purely to foment dissent.
He was really quite appalling to listen to; an awful candidate that does not deserve the support of anyone.
I won't vote for Schuette as I think that guy is easily the most corrupt person in Lansing today and he has no hesitation in ruining another person's life in order to get personal gain, but I certainly won't vote for El-Sayed either. I'll write in Duggan or just leave the thing blank, because screw those guys. They are everything that makes me think the political world is a lost cause.
Is Brian Calley a viable candidate? My plan is to vote for Calley in the primary to stop Schutte...then look at who comes out the Democratic side...If it is between Whitmer and Calley, I will vote Calley...
Calley has been more or less running the state for almost a year now. He is being groomed for the job. He seems to have done fairly well. Nothing dramatic, but we seem to be functioning more or less competently. I am not sure why he would not be considered a viable candidate. Probably more viable than Schuette who is probably more controversial. Schuette is a better speaker, but that is about it.
Duggan is reasonably impressive even if many of his perspectives and policies are disagreeable to me. It is as much about the ability to competently run the State as it is about perspectives and policies. Someone I completely agree with who is not competent to run the state is not a good option to me. A somewhat moderate democrat who is competent to run the state would be great to me. Competence is more important that policy. The next Governor is not going to make huge policy changes in any event. Not without legislative support and they are not going to change direction any time soon.
People get so caught up in "I have to beat the other side and win so I can be a winner" they forget we need someone with the skills and experience to run the state.
I am pretty sure Duggan is not running because the time is not ripe. Democrats are not well positioned for this election. He will run when there is a presidential election with a very popular democratic candidate for president, and when people are fed up with the current government and/or at least when moderates are looking on Democrats more favorably. The only advantage to him running now is the democrats have no serious competition for him. The primaries would be easy peasy, but making a run and losing means you are probably done (obviously not always, but usually). Thus it makes more sense to run when you have substantial certainty that you can win.
My guess is that Gretchen Whitmer will win the Democratic primary. If this guy does, the Republican candidate (likely Bill Schuette or Brian Calley if he runs) would have much more experience and would likely win (Michigan is kind of trending red anyhow.)
I'd say it's possible, but unlikely at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. He tried to claim Snyder has destroyed the state economy, which, while Snyder has made some questionable choices the economy of today has vastly recovered over the economy of 8 years ago, even I (a liberal) can admit that. Then he talked about the Flint water thing for about 10 minutes, exaggerating, making things up, and just straight-up lying. And being that I happen to know a bit more about that topic than the average person (and wayyy more than he does), trust me, he was lying purely to foment dissent. 
