- This topic has 39 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Several commentators in the general media have pointed out that what makes Bernie Sanders unique, as far as presidential candidates are concerned is, his avowed atheism. Should he be elected president, he would be the first “known” atheist in the White House. Putting aside his economic theories, is anyone comfortable with an individual in such a position who refuses to see the Yad Hashem in the day to day world.
As much as most presidents invoke G-d, most of them just play the game for show. Bill Clinton comes to mind – Yiras Shamyaim is the farthest thing from their character. Now maybe the fact that he’s a JEWISH apikoros is cause from concern due to chillul Hashem etc., but since his politics are so far off-base, I won’t stress about his beliefs.
The problems with Sanders are numerous. However, in regards to this specific question looking at recent history doesnt bode well for an atheist in position of power. Some of the wonderful atheist leaders of the past century include: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro. All of those are Socialist/Communist atheists. Not a great list.
Communists are typically atheists, so Bernie is just being a good comrade.
Having Yiras Shamayim doesnt mean someone is moral. Millions of jews have been killed in the name of the dead man on the stick.
That’s not “Yiras SHomayim”
That was perhaps, Yiras Dead Man on a Stick.
I am uncomfortable with having a Jewish president altogether. We are in Galus and the goyim have enough crazy theories about the Jews (elders of Zion comes to mind) without there being a Jew in the top position. In addition, a Jew like Sanders would be careful to prove that he isn’t being partial to Jews, and would probably be tougher on Israel than a goy.
There have been jews who have been heads of State
Leon Blum was Prime Minster of France
Benjamin Disraeli Prime minister of Great Britain was converted to christianity as a child, but always brought up his jewish roots
True. They were heads of state, not head of the world super power, also, it was before the age of internet.
Queen: Britain was the world superpower when Disraeli was Prime Minister. That being said he was a meshumed.
France was a world super Power when Leon Blum was prime minster. And Great Britain was also a world super power (maybe the worlds most powerful nation) when he was prime minister
Joseph: Right, but he was converted to Anglican at age 12.
Zdad: France wasn’t a super power, they mostly lost wars.
Schwartzy: In the book the prime ministers there is a piece on Golda Meir visiting Austria and getting a cold shoulder from Kreisky.
Queen: What point are you conveying by pointing out the age he became a meshumed? He remained a meshumed after entering adulthood as well.
Also, I assume you concede the point about him presiding over a superpower.
The point is that he didn’t think of himself as Jewish if he was already converted as a child, he didn’t run as a Jew for office.
Right – Great Britain was a super power at the time.
Sanders has not actually proclaimed himself to be an atheist. He definitely is not a communist and is merely irreligious, not anti-religious. (Note his fight for the Chabad menorah in Burlington — while that state’s Jewish governor wanted to cave to the ACLU. It would be peculiar for an atheist to make a bracha to a God he believes does not exist!)
Leon Blum was Prime Minister of France, not the Head of State. Pierre Mendes-France, also Jewish, was also Prime Minister of France. Blum got France to arm itself to the teeth against the Nazi threat and Mendes-France helped Israel a lot.
Sanders has not actually proclaimed himself to be an atheist.
Fair enough, but he refused to give s simple “Yes” when asked if he believes in G-d.
It would be peculiar for an atheist to make a bracha to a God he believes does not exist!
Nah, he’s a politician.
I’d rather a socialist than a liar, possible murderer, and sleaze ball like Shillary.
Sanders has not actually proclaimed
himself to be an atheist.
Fair enough, but he refused to give s simple
“Yes” when asked if he believes in G-d.
Y’all have heard of “agnostics,” right?
Some of the wonderful atheist leaders of the past century include: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro.
Those names have another thing in common – they were all dictators.
And how many current heads of state in the Western World are religious?
“I’d rather a socialist than a liar, possible murderer, and sleaze ball like Shillary.”
I’d take a Socialist, or Hillary, against someone who is openly signalling acceptance of neo-Nazi support — Donald Trump. David Duke announced his support for Trump last week and Trump today lied three times in claiming he had no idea who Duke was. And also today, holocaust denying anti-Semite Jean Marie Le Pen just endorsed Trump.
You think Hillary is a sleaze ball? Find. Vote for the sleaze ball. Its important.
Charlie, then you admit that the choice might be between a neveila and a tereifa? Unless Bloomberg, who is at least a fiscal conservative, runs as an independent.
Avi – it is so exciting to hear someone say that! Every time i bring up hilary’s indictment, everyone in the room (my husband included) tells me i’m crazy, that she will NEVER be indicted because nobody will in the department will ever sign off on it. I can’t even wrap my head around that. even oj got indicted, he just wouldn’t be found guilty. I just keep hoping.
In a parlimentary system the Prime Minister IS the head of state
Netanyahu, Amgela Merkal, Justin Treadu (Canada) and David Cameron are all prime ministers and are representative of their respective countries on the world scene, Many of these countries also have a president, but they are more a figure head than actual power
Charlie is sounding desperate… I think he’s already acknowledged the inevitable, at least on a subliminal level.
You can’t stop people from supporting your candidacy. Palin also endorsed Trump, and he knew enough to banish her back to Alaska. He’s not embracing Duke’s support either. It would be a problem if he wasn’t trying to distance himself from such a demagogue.
Contrast that to all the wackos who come out of the woodwork to support Democratic candidates every time…. the likes of Sharpton, Farrakhan, and in Obama’s case Jeremiah Wright. And they do little to distance themselves from those racist demagogues.
Trump didn’t to much to distance himself from david Duke on cnn yesterday despite being given multiple chances to do so.
“Unless Bloomberg, who is at least a fiscal conservative”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
“Trump didn’t to much to distance himself from david Duke on cnn yesterday despite being given multiple chances to do so. “
Not only that, he lied when he claimed he didn’t know who Duke was or what he represented. He had specifically blasted Duke way back in 2000, calling him a “neo-Nazi”!
“In a parlimentary system the Prime Minister IS the head of state”
Wrong. The Head of State for both the UK and Canada is Queen Elizabeth II. The Head of State of Germany is President Joachim Gauck. The Head of State of Israel is President Reuven Rivlin.
“Every time i bring up hilary’s indictment, everyone in the room (my husband included) tells me i’m crazy, that she will NEVER be indicted because nobody will in the department will ever sign off on it.”
She will not be indicted because there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. The people who are expecting an indictment are unfamiliar with the laws involved.
Colin Powell wasn’t even investigated for using an unsecured email server for information that he claims wasn’t classified but others are now claiming should have been. Jeb Bush wasn’t indicted for his use of his personal smartphone to discuss classified information regarding National Guard deployments when he was Governor of Florida. Karl Rove wasn’t indicted even for a deliberate exposure of a US CIA agent’s cover. And nobody in the Bush White House got indicted for deliberate leaks to the media during the Iraq War. This is all hype from the Republican slander-and-lie machine.
The irony is that Clinton’s server was probably more secure than the government’s servers. Neither Manning nor Snowden knew of its existence!
And note that most of what the slander-and-lie machine is claiming should be classified is material that is already well known — drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan. Everyone knows the US is doing drone strikes in Pakistan! Yet the FBI and CIA are trying to cover it up.
So I don’t get it.
Is the claim against Trump that he is an anti-Semite?
Because his daughter Ivanka who, by any measure, is one of his closest advisors identifies as a Modern-orthodox Jewish woman and sends her children to Jewish schools.
Or is the claim that Trump is a liar.
‘Cuase he very well maybe, but if his wins the Republican primary and faces Hillary Clinton then it’s one liar vs. another liar.
Why is it more important to vote for one liar over another?
Only Charlie can possibly suggest that Hillary is not an evil crook.
Anyone with any sense of honesty knows that Hillary is an evil, conniving criminal.
Who together with her husband has been selling the government for “contributions” to their “foundation”.
A foundation which, they have themselves admitted, has filed false 990s.
Don’t come up with all the baloney about the others allegedly doing the same, none of them deleted the files to try and cover up the lie.
She is about as honest as Open orthodoxy is Jewish.
In fact the two are perfect for each other.
edited
Also worth mentioning is that only a grand jury can indict. It would have to repeat essentially the entire investigation. So far, no grand jury has been convened to do this.
“You think Hillary is a sleaze ball? Find. Vote for the sleaze ball. Its important.”
Charlie,
There you go again, trying to sound like an expert when all you have is an irrational allegiance to a failed, outdated political philosophy. You never tire of shouting into the wind that Democrats adore Jews, Obama loves Israel and Carter should have a Refuah Sheleima. Just like the classic, self-hating mah-yafis of old.
Seven posts and counting, just on this thread? You’re becoming absolutely hysterical and have made a complete laughingstock of yourself.
“Only Charlie can possibly suggest that Hillary is not an evil crook.”
As I explained, it is not clear that any crime has been committed. You, however, are guilty of motzi shem ra.
But even if you think that she is a crook, you still have to vote for her against Trump, just as Louisiana voters had to vote for an actual crook, Edwin Edwards, to prevent David Duke from becoming that state’s Governor. Trump is rallying racists and anti-Semites like no candidate in generations. There is simply no comparison.
Trump and Clinton are both horrible, but Trump is not Duke, and Clinton is not bichlal amisecha.
Trump is bad, but it’s likely that he will ultimately not be on the ballot. He is getting closer and closer to completely imploding.
On the other hand, there are only two democrat candidates and they are both bad.
Charlie, what about destroying e-mails, using a non-secure server for sensitive correspondence and accessory to the murder of American diplomats? While it i s not a crime you can throw in professional liar from way back. Democrat Jerry Zeifman says that she engaged in a variety of unethical and illegal practices as a young staffer on the Watergate committee. In the end he fired her and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. He also said that he regrets not filing a complaint against her with the appropriate bar association.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.