|
BarbarianElephant posted:If I was Jewish I'd feel that people who start frothing at the mouth about "Israel" and Israel only (when there are many terrible governments in the world) are probably not very far from getting pretty weird about Jews in general. Hello. I am an actual Jew. You do not have the moral authority to define antisemitism. The vast majority of American Jews are reform, and have a much more nuanced view of Israel than you are demonstrating. Please have this discussion with your Jewish friends, and if you don't have any, please make some before forming an opinion on this issue.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think the vast majority are secular and not affiliated with a certain sect. Reform judaism is not a sect, and can include secular jews. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/ quote:One-third (35%) of all U.S. Jews identify with the Reform movement, while 18% identify with Conservative Judaism, 10% with Orthodox Judaism and 6% with a variety of smaller groups, such as the Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal movements. About three-in-ten American Jews (including 19% of Jews by religion and two-thirds of Jews of no religion) say they do not identify with any particular Jewish denomination. I appreciate your interest in all of this, but I'll tell you what I told the other guy, please talk to your jewish friends, or make some before forming an opinion on What Jews Are Like.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
botany posted:Can you say more about this? I honestly have no clue about this stuff and I thought Reform Judaism wasn't secular. The nutshell version is that Reform jews acknowledge that the bible is not the word of god, that ethics and discussion are more important than ceremony, and that judaism must be a continuous, progressive evolution of an ancient culture, not a fundamental adherence to ancient laws. For example, I am an atheist, and a reform jew, and neither I nor my rabbi see any conflict with that whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm a secular Jew. I identify as myself as Jewish culturally but I haven't been to temple in like 10 years and don't practice any of the aspects of the religion other than having dinner with my family on some of the holidays. People who I know who are "reformed" and would identify themselves as that do much more than I do. I don't think we belong in the same category. Oh, OK. Me too, except I do go to temple every once in a while. I probably just had a more liberal temple growing up. Reform is a spectrum, there are reform temples that are more or less conservative, but they all stick to the basic ideas I stated in my last post. The concept of reform includes your practice and identity, as it includes pretty much all of secular Judaism. Though of course you can define yourself however you want.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Harsh But True posted:So... if you're not a POC you can't care about/talk about minority issues? I'm not a woman, can I not care about women's rights? Lol at the idea that only Jews can talk about antisemitism? You absolutely can, and should, and if you care about PoC at all, it's your obligation to. But you must always, always do it from your perspective as a non PoC / minority / woman. The minute you start saying things as a white person like "well the thing you have to understand about black lives matter" or "women just want to be treated like" or "jews are generally democrats, so that means", you need to take a step back and check yourself. Stay in your lane, go with what you know, use your privilege and authority to help by deferring to people who actually know what the gently caress they're talking about because they're living it. Remember that you aren't living it, and no matter what happens with Trump, you'll be fine compared to people who don't look like you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:Bernie can't call for socialism if he isn't willing to live by his words. Otherwise he is just another hypocrite and liar like "Crooked Hillary". when the gently caress did Bernie call for socialism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:John McCain is a good enough person to at least be somewhat self aware, so from time to time he says things that sound very reasonable. The problem is that he doesn't break from the GOP enough when it matters, so the only practical effect is that you end up with a lot liberals who think of him as "one of the good ones." Like most conservatives, he's only morally correct when confronted with an issue he has direct experience with. Of course he's against torture, he was loving tortured. He is still a human product of the MIC and incapable of empathy toward PoC or the poor. I'll take any allies I can get from either side right now, but let's not start falling all over ourselves over what a great guy McCain is all of a sudden. He still explicitly backed Reagonomics, he's still a climate change denier, he still hosed over cap-and-trade.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Yeah that's a great idea! Let's run people because they are a minority lol. Christ.... Why not? It's politics. We just had a young, passionate minority president for 8 years who will leave office with one of the highest approval ratings in history. It's not an insane suggestion that encouraging more young, passionate minorities to take leadership roles in the party might be a winning strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
sd6 posted:Just because some people use criticism of Islam as a cover for racism doesnt mean we can no longer criticize it ever. I dont want people to be rounded up or harassed because they are Muslim, but I still think a magic wizard that tells people to stone gays and adulterous women to death is a pretty fuckin dumb idea to have in 2016 If that's your issue with Islam, you might be upset to learn that a breathtaking number of red state christians think this way, which is inarguably a much more pressing concern.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So why would it be a bad thing to seek out and endorse qualified minority candidates and give them a chance? Ellison or Perez would both be awesome choices precisely because they're qualified minority candidates who could balance social and economic justice and be trusted by both parties. Ellison chairing the DNC would continue to force the right to confront its own xenophobia, and the result would be very, very ugly. Which is part of why I think he's the right person for the job.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
sd6 posted:This always comes up when there is a criticism of Islam, "but Christianity!". Yes, Christianity is dumb too and there are Christians with abhorrent ideas. That doesn't change the fact that theres also a lot of Muslims with really dumb ideas that should also be criticized. Im also not sure I would say Christians are inarguably a more pressing concern given the amount of Islamic terrorism out there What's more likely to affect you as an American: 1. Islamic Terrorism 2. Living in a state with a fundamentalist Christian governor?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
cravius posted:This is a lazy argument because the actual ideological differences between these sects is almost negligible. It's more accurate to point out that most criticisms of Islam are directed toward fundamentalism, and wahhabism specifically. Islam isn't a unified whole, and it's racist as gently caress to paint 1.6 billion people with the same brush.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:wew boy you almost got me on this one, but seriously having mods and admins of the forum lay out rules for off limits terms for criticizing stuff weird to anyone else? what the gently caress are you talking about
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
sd6 posted:To affect me in any way at all? The second one. To kill me or blow my limbs off? The first. Radical Christians are lovely, but they are not on the same level as radical Muslims in the modern world. That is a false equivalence. You are as likely to be killed by your own furniture as killed in a terrorist attack.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:oh you are serious? I grew up in Columbus and have family there now, one working at OSU and asking that today is pretty stupid. I wasn't referring to any specific incident. I'm genuinely sorry if I upset you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:That doesn't do much to confront the issue. Exactly. Terrorism sucks, but if you're concerned about fundamentalism the obvious first concern should be the people who have actual power over your circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
sd6 posted:You are correct, not disputing that. But if I were to be one of the unlucky few Americans who gets killed by radical religious extremism, I'd be willing to bet a lot more money on it being a radical Muslim than a radical Christian. The vast majority of terrorism in America is not carried out by Muslims. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/ https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005#terror_05sum
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:A) Exchanges and premium subsidies are probably out. A) Mandated exchanges, sure, so most states with a republican governor will be hosed. Most blue states will probably keep their exchanges. B) fuuuuuck C)This makes zero sense, the whole problem with pre-existing conditions was coverage gaps. My bet is the rule will stay as is, which is actually bad in this scenario. D)fuuuuuuuuuuuuck
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wait, is Mass Health (and other state level programs) going to be hosed by this? If you rely on the subsidy, yes unless you can somehow convince the wasteland between boston and springfield to make up the tax difference
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:If there's one hope to the total privatization of the public health insurances, it's that it'll make some future version of the ACA much easier to implement. Create a public option that people can buy into. Private health insurance wouldn't be able to compete and will eventually die out. Bam, UHC. oh you sweet summer child
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think you're reading that wrong. He's not regurgitating what he sees on TV, he's colluding with right wing media. Which is much more worrying and dangerous. The guy consistently tweets whatever hot bullshit pops into his head, has demonstrated and explained doing this to multiple media sources, and often does so to the detriment of his campaign and his team. He is not colluding with Fox. If he wanted to collude with Fox, he would just loving call up Fox and Friends like he does every other weekday anyway. This was a constant refrain during the Bush era too. "You see, he appears to be a loving idiot, but that's all a ruse because he's really just creating a smokescreen for this strategy that Cheney blah blah blah fart." Bush wasn't smart. Trump isn't smart. They are exactly as loving dumb as they look. Stop inventing patterns and conspiracies where there are none.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:He doesn't have to be smart for Conway to be like "hey flag burners are punks right, it would be great if you tweeted that today and showed how strong of a leader you are." Conway might be out of a job after the Romney thing. It's doubtful she's in the room much right now. Also, if you think Conway has ever had any control over his twitter you're not paying attention. Absolutely nobody hates that twitter account more than Conway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:Regardless of whether Trump tweeting whatever garbage comes into his head is an intentional smokescreen or not, it doesn't change the fact that people should still focus on things like his non-political ties to other leaders, the fact that he just settled a lawsuit over his fake University, the fact that he looks to be abandoning a number of his campaign promises etc. Focus to what end? What can be done about any of that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:it's really easy to not care when neither politician does anything for you other than lower your taxes and gently caress poor people even harder how are you active in these forums and still able to hold this opinion
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The Secretary of Defense has to confirm it. Now supposed that the Secretary of Defense is also insane; there's still a chain of command past those two consisting of various air bases, command and control nodes, and other launch sites and platforms. Anyone in the chain of command, especially higher ups, upon receiving the order would go "huh I'm getting this order even though we're at DEFCON 5 and the targets are all in Mexico. This is a really suspicious order I'd better confirm it a few times" at which point panicked White House officials will have contacted Pence and informed him that the POTUS is off his rocker and he needs to invoke the 25th amendment right loving now does this thought actually give you some kind of comfort?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:One thing that you're forgetting is that people in nuclear subs don't know poo poo. They don't get CNN down there. So if the captain of a nuclear sub gets the launch order, he doesn't have the perspective necessary to know if it's actually warranted. The only reason he wouldn't go through with the launch is a serious committed opposition to nuclear war. Which is an unlikely position for the captain of a nuclear sub to take. You should look up Vasili Arkhipov. This situation actually happened, and he pretty much single-handedly saved the world.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
B B posted:I was a fan of Bernie's policies but always thought he was an imperfect messenger. I really hope we can find someone younger with a similar message by 2020, so that we don't end up with Cory loving Booker. I keep seeing this, and I've read a couple op-eds about why Booker is Bad and Not Good, but I haven't seen much substance to the complaint. Why does the left seem to hate Booker? He seems like a carbon copy of Obama, which doesn't seem remotely bad to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Also I guess we can add "is a renegade Time Lord" to Hilary's resume because she traveled back in time to change her Senatorial voting record to be 93% in line with Sanders? If that's what happened, she was successful because in the two years they were in the senate together, she really did vote with Bernie 93% of the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/06/the-rare-times-that-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-disagreed-in-the-senate/ http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/03/30/31-senate-bills-hillary-bernie-voted-differently/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:I think this sort of touches on the whole point of how media coverage on Benghazi/E-mails and FBI response of E-mails killed what would have been turnout for the Democratic party. If scandal actually affected turnout, we would not have President-Elect Trump. Scandal wasn't the problem, it was Hillary's complete inability to deflect it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. I believe Democratic leadership finally got the point that neoliberal centrism doesn't work. They literally adopted Bernie's platform wholesale as their own, but their candidate failed to campaign on it. We have a good shot at either Keith Ellison or Ilyse Hogue as DNC chair, but even if we end up with Dean again, the platform is more progressive than it has been in 30 years. The question is now if they can sell it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Okay but I thought the breakdowns had determined that Dem turnout, or lack thereof, was at least a subdominant factor? Not subdominant, the dominant factor. Trump got fewer total votes than Romney did. https://news.vice.com/story/hillary-clinton-lost-because-white-democrats-in-key-states-didnt-bother-to-vote http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Also this. How can you shame a party that literally does not have shame and never suffers repercussions for their actions? Which is exactly why the pitch has to come from new voices. Even if Dean is chair, I hope to poo poo he finds some new, charismatic mouthpieces. Nobody wants to listen to the old guard anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Not true - Trump is currently at approximately 62.5 million votes to Romney's ~61 million. Fair enough, votes are still being counted. The point stands though, he did not expand the republican base in any significant way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Wouldn't improving Democratic turnout among working class whites over 65 in the Rust Belt have made a meaningful difference? Probably yes, but it would not have had anything close to the effect that Obama's youth and minority GOTV did. The democrats really should not be focusing on white voters. They had a winning strategy and they abandoned it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
CheeseSpawn posted:I wouldn't say dominant. There were a culmination of a lot of small factors that added up to give Trump the narrow win. For example, Democrats stayed home, Republicans didn't, counties flipped. That shouldn't be surprising and doesn't contradict my point at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:my question is why are democrats so eager to find out why trump won and discredit his base when they should really be asking why they lost and how hillary managed to shed millions of democratic voters? Because people are generally incapable of blaming themselves for anything. Dale Carnegie wrote a book in the 30's that you should probably read. Democrats have more voters, they just don't vote because Democrats don't know how to appeal to Democrats. Sanders was a vision for how this can change, his coalition is the hope for the future of the party. He wasn't the right candidate, but he had the right idea. Saying Sanders would have won is sort of the wrong point. Warren would have won, and that's the kind of person we need next.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:My only thing with Warren is I would like the Dems not to have another baby boomer as our nominee. I don't even care how old she is, she's the only person in this entire fuckshow of an election who managed to repeatedly shut down trump on twitter. If she didn't hate Clinton so much she should have been running her social media.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
yoctoontologist posted:Note to the multiple people claiming that turnout was way down versus 2012 and Trump got fewer total votes than Romney: this is not true. The numbers you're looking at were published before all the votes were counted. Heck, all the votes still haven't been counted. Here's the Cook Political Report's popular vote tracker, which is being continually updated. That's half a million more votes. There are 11 million more Americans now than in 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:turns out the spineless cowards can be bent leftwards under even the smallest amount of pressure i called that fucker's office three or four times to talk about ellison, so i'd like to think it was me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
anti_strunt posted:Well, obviously, but a margin that large has to be unprecedented. I know how the states went, mostly, but where did most of those several million wasted votes come from? rscott posted:California mostly I didn't used to be in favor of getting rid of the EC, but the mass migration to urban centers is only getting stronger and I don't see any other way of fixing this. We're likely to see this phenomenon getting stronger, not weaker unless we do something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 00:10
|
|