er

OK. Finally made it through 1st hearing. It was portrayed as an introduction, with more evidence to follow. But it was poignant to see the deposition testimony of Trump’s top campaign folks including their poll/numbers cruncher. They testified that:
1. They informed Trump that he was likely going to loose; and
2. They dug into the stats, irregularities, and allegations, and there was no fraud, and no irregularities, and they advised Trump on all of this. These guys would be the ones to really dig in to everything aggressively. Trump himself doesn’t dig through polls ad data; he relies on his campaign.
3. Barr, Trump’s appointee to the the top law enforcement position, who would know more than anyone about the fraud allegations, testified there was no fraud.

Also in the weeks before the election, all polls showed Trump was in trouble (even Fox news polls). I saw him complaining at a rally that suburban women weren’t going to vote for him, and ‘please vote for me because it would be so embarrassing if sleepy Joe beat me.’

So the fact that he knew before the election that he may very well lose, the fact that his campaign heads told him in the days after the election that he was finished and there was no fraud, shows that he knowingly pushed a false narrative. And the ‘no fraud’ conclusion supports how the 50-something court cases fell flat and the numerous videos and allegations that surfaced were all proven to be hoaxes.

A couple extra notes to address people’s prior posts:
1. Apparently Pelosi initially pushed for a formal bipartisan investigation, which the republicans rejected. I don’t know the details, but that’s their explanation why they did this has a committee hearing. They wanted something more formal;
2. Smerel: you acknowledge Trump probably did lots of treif things. Yet you skewer and discredit all investigations as corrupt and political. They are working with a handicap because Trump and many of his top supporters have not cooperated.

Syag: it is not a court of law, not that type of hearing. Yes, 1-sided because there’s no one defending Trump. At least there are 2 republicans participating who have every political incentive NOT to participate. The idea is to present what THEY found happened, and Trump’s level of participation. If there’s anything persuasive presented, we’ll have to examine further if you remain skeptical. If there’s credible evidence (i.e. texts, testimony of his inner circle, family, Barr) that establishes Trump was up to no good, that’s enough reason not to vote for him again. Who cares that they don’t prove it was “criminal,” or if certain testimony presented would not be admissible in court. As a poster said, you don’t need to read mein kampf to know Hitler was a rasha. The allegations are egregious, so worth finding out. Yes, this is also certainly “political.” Trump indicates he wants to run. He’s been supporting candidates who would bend the constitution for him, continuing to threaten democracy and the rule of law, if true. So it is of consequence and worth finding out.

Morning. I only watched a few short segments, so trying not to have an opinion until I see. They said the 1st night was a preview on what to expect and that they’ll bring the evidence over the next 5 sessions. Any “rhetoric” will need to be backed up. Forgive me for being basic, but let’s all remember that evidence will likely be a mix of objective provable facts (for example proof of Proud Boy conspiracy to disrupt certification) and direct or circumstantial evidence (i.e. “stand by” + people warning him Proud Boys were interpreting his statements as encouragement, + if maybe Trump was on a group chat with these fellows), when taken all together could reasonably infer Trump conspired or at least knew he was inciting a coup. Or the fact that Ivanka and other inner-circle aides apparently testified that they believed there was no election fraud, we could reasonably infer Trump didn’t really believe he was cheated (especially if each allegation of fraud turned out to be a lie). Of course this isn’t a court of law and so they aren’t necessarily trying to prove a specific crime was committed. But if he’s a bad apple we should know about it even if no crime. Yes, the committee could throw mud. They wouldn’t go this far though unless things really looked bad on the whole. So they laid out a road map of 7 things Trump plotted to do, we shall see… Apologies for the length.

ujm: “That’s like advocating you cannot have an opinion on Hitler unless you read Mein Kampf.”
I think you are trying to say that you don’t need to prove Hitler is a rasha since it’s already well-established and a forgone conclusion? To us, yes. But U.S polls show a big chunk of Americans are misinformed about Hitler and the holocaust. For these people I would encourage they learn about the facts about this rasha since they are most at risk for actually believing misinformation and revisionist propaganda. I sincerely believe that anyone who gives Trump a full pass for Jan 6 is (i) is similarly misinformed (whether by “news” or social circle) or (ii) doesn’t care anyway and wouldn’t mind much if America became a true dictatorship. For those who fall into (i), yes, the hearing would be helpful. And then go hear what the other side says AFTERwards.

Syag: I understand dossier was flawed. But it was not what started the investigation. Investigation started July 2016 after some troubling (and verified) info came to light that wasn’t mentioned at all in the dossier. The investigators learned of the dossier later that September. And yes, shame on Hillary for lots of things. If she became president it would be correct to hold her to the same scrutiny as Trump was and any other president, and get the facts.

TS: People have tried discrediting the 99% of scientists who agree that global warming is real (and as a result of humans) on the basis that their research could have been funded by grants awarded by partisian organizations. On the other hand, I saw a good interview with a top climate denier. Even he admitted temperature was rising and it was a result of humans, albeit much less than the ‘liberal media’ suggests. I looked him up and he was an energy company lobbyist. And he’s not nogaia?? Moreover, his articles show he outright denied global warming and slowly he’s conceded more an more. The guy was a former a lobbyist for tobacco and claimed cigarettes don’t cause cancer. All of these 1-percenters are in the same boat. I’ll never understand why you’re all so loyal to these corporate lobbyists.

AviraDeArah, again, well said as to why we are concerned about laws as to non-Jews. I was not disputing the need to be concerned about this, btw.
What it comes down to for me is the issue of whether or not poskim actually limit their justification of abortion to the situations that lawmakers would if they had their druthers. Makes sense?
I’ll also add my belief that our society’s ethics and norms are only partially directed by laws. And in the case of contentious issues, including abortion, fighting about it politically can (and has) backfired. Partially as a result of fighting against abortion directly, abortion became more than half the population’s political and personal identity. So it doesn’t help/improve your first 2 points (lesaken olam and “society affects us”).

If everyone is in agreement that there are situations where abortion is acceptable or mandatory, then why not keep it legal so that poskim can make the determination instead of leaving that determination to the legislature? It is entirely possible that poskim matir abortion in more instances than what most of you think.

nishtdayngesheft: Not meaning to oversimplify, but there are many vocal anti-semetic groups whose support for Trump is exactly because of their perception that notwithstanding his strong stand on Israel, he has said things that came across to them as disparaging of American Jews and other minorities (or at least tolerant of those views). Whereas even if Biden were an anti-semite (I never heard any such thing), nobody who supports Biden supports him for for the reason that he has any such (perceived) hate.
And Trump’s support of Bibi was a show for evangelicals, who largely support Israel for their own religious doctrine, not for us. Whereas democrats’ support of religious liberty and TOLERANCE on our own soil is a benefit to everyone, though tolerance now-a-days can get a bit extreme.

True by the way, Putin didn’t do this on Trump’s watch. After thinking about it, I’ve concluded that at best, Trump could claim that his unpredictable nature on any issue big or small could have scared Putin. But at the same time, that unpredictable nature is the nature of a dictator so he basically normalized and licensed other nations to act like dictators to get what they want, instead of negotiation and compromise. That’s the last thing we need for global stability. And the world always depended on U.S. to act as an example.
At worst, it be could be said that while this didn’t happen on his watch, he spent 4 years eroding systems and trust that create stability.

ujm brings a good point about Crimea. But the larger issue is Trump readily went along with Putin there. Just because some Texans argue Texas never became part of the US, you can’t just shrug it off if another country took it over. Taking over territories, especially in Europe, is some dangerous business. Note: Israel was also acknowledged as a sovereign nation too. End of story. We don’t care anymore who used to control it in the past. The world recognized Ukraine, and Ukraine wans to join NATO one day to protect its recognized sovereignty due to Russia’s aggression. I sympathize. Granted NATO might hesitate admitting them since they would then have to attack Russia if they go after Ukraine, but again, being wimpy is worse.

Smerel: Why blame NATO? Part of the purpose of NATO is to deter aggressors from invading sovereign countries. Just because we know Russia wants to take over eastern Europe again you say NATO has to stay far away? Sounds wimpy. Putin has nothing to worry about so far as he respects these eastern countries as sovereign nations, which he does not.

OK, so seems you would agree that my situation would be basically like south africa. It’s a starting place for discussion about how materially different Israel-proper is.

Hi rightwriter: I would agree that the more more you give rights and government representation to arabs living under your control, the farther away we are from the concept of “apartheid.” Surely Arab Israelis have some of these basic rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys, not sure where one draws the line in calling it “apartheid.” But on the other hand, if Israel were to annex all or a portion of the west bank, for example, unless you are going to grant them either citizenship or let them somehow govern themselves, that is a case that smells like apartheid. With that in mind, where are you on annexation? Is it unlike apartheid? Or do you just not care whether it is or isn’t?

Hi,
I agree with what aviradearah says above but add the following:
Even if we find a movement or group we feel comfortable with hashkafically and religiously, people are people, and so you’ll find variation. Don’t worry though, that’s a beautiful thing. Best to find a shul where you feel accepted and valued. Don’t expect everyone to treat you exactly the way you dream of; nobody gets that treatment, spectrum or not. Better yet, if you can find a chavrusa to connect with and learn with every day -someone who understands you- that may be the best way to find your home. The rest will follow. Just like you don’t feel part of a group, most other people too have their own identities, even if they also strongly identify with a group. Value people, just like you seek others to value you.

IYK: Rather than going after Reb Elizer, I would say the ball is more in your court. In sum, you’ve felt personally judged by the velt. You may have found disagreement on this thread hashkafically, but probably more compassion and respect for you personally than perhaps you expected looking at your initial post. You’re not going to connect to what everybody says (I do not think Reb E tries to show he knows all. He does gives insights and glimpses I personally appreciate), but you can still recognize the good. Otherwise you are guilty of the same thing you can’t stand in others. There are passionate and inspired people out there, each sharing his own G-d given understanding and personality. Clearly you’ve been looking to express yourself and engage in dialogue. The question therefore is: for what reason. To dismiss or knock these people down? Or to see if there are some respectful and thoughtful people out there where you can conclude not everybody in the community is rotten, and may even have something you could learn from.

Or put another way: the strategy is based on her recognition that it’s easier to show a trier of fact that her factual claims were outrageous and silly than to demonstrate that there’s even a 51% chance that her allegations COULD be truthful.

If you supported Trump, fine. But supporting allegations that are easier to prove as completely silly than ‘51% maybe-could-be-true’ isn’t the path of an emes-seeker. And emes is a Torah value btw.

“Please tell us who attempted to baselessly overthrow the election.”

Plenty of other threads and many more reliable articles abound on this. If you consider yourself educated on this point and you’re not budging, then your message is a big reason why I am personally turned off by the republican party. At least TorahValue’s premises make some logical sense. But your message may have pushed me even further from joining a party that you don’t seem too eager to invite me to anyway!

T. Values: I think I acknowledged there’s a problem teaching kids this is normal. But I simply disagree as to the character of the republican party. It’s become more diversified but the ethnicities who join are more often used as props to show they’re not anti-whatever. Frum Jews in the party are
like a tiny spec compared to the overall numbers. Most members probably don’t know of their support (though I’m guessing here). The fact that derivatives of Qanon conspiracies have been embraced by the establishment is proof it’s still very white/christian, as well as the ties many of the insurrectioinists have to white supremacy groups – These ARE an indespensable part of Trump’s base. Republican pro-Israel agenda is to further an evangelical proficy, which swung way to the right to throw it in the democrats’ faces that republicans support Israel more. But it’s not for the love of Jews. I meet religious Christians who repsect us but I also meet some who show they don’t. Most but not all of Trump’s Israel policies and ALL of his pro-Israel rhetoric are short-termed provocative measures that can be overturned and have inflamed the other side. I’d rather Israel be helped quietly without being tossed around like a football. I hope Biden will llive up to that. If you disagree on my characterization of the party then let’s leave it at that because we’re probably not going to make headway.

TV: “I think ive put forth some solid reasons to vote and support republicans, im still waiting on your counterarguments, in the form of actual policy you support.”
Apologies for such a long response, I got on a roll:

You said, “I agree that there are many who simply go along with it to appease their base, . . . but l’moy nafcha mina.”

I think most in support of gay or transgender rights are primarily “appealing to the base” in the sense that the Dem’s basic premise is live and let live so long as it doesn’t interfere with someone else’s quality of life. I agree this has expanded in some uncomfortable and troubling ways and I do have concerns it could have a negative effect to society; in my mind, there’s a difference between generally letting people live as they want, and actively advocating and celebrating that lifestyle, which erodes family values. I wish we’d find ways in politics and society to achieve the former without bleeding into the latter.

Nevertheless, in the LONG TERM the democratic party would stick up for a frum Jew’s general right to practice than republicans. If you’re looking to specifically compare red and blue policies, I agree with you there are seemingly compelling arguments to go red: they actively promote G-d and family values. But again, I think most or many republicans who talk like this is really more into “Christian culture” (i.e. WHITE-GENTILE),” and them talking about family values is really more of a code word for advocating the dominance of the historical white and simplistic homogeneity they have (or used to have) in their own communities. Hopefully I don’t sound like I just walked off a college campus, but there’s truth there. Now let’s assume for a moment Trump really has unconditional love for Jews (though I beg to differ). He doesn’t tell his supporters this, has also egged on or supported anti-semetic groups, remained silent, etc. Once once Trump is gone, Jews will be one of the first casualties of this nationalistic, nativist, and populist movement.

Transgenderism: I’m no expert on this. But seems to be a rare enough that I would hate for anyone to define their political identity around it or what to do in a sad situation where someone and their family are psychologically suffering over this. I don’t know much on this, but who knows what WE would do? Again, we don’t want to celebrate or normalize this stuff. But I don’t think people are “inspired” to be transgender, I would doubt any of them are actively intending to rebel against Hashem, and there are only a few of these cases compared to our population.

In all, you raise some good points. I have concerns with advocating certain lifestyles on par with traditional values. But once the White-Gentile party dominates politically and becomes emboldened, they won’t have our backs. Forcing laws down people’s throats aren’t so good at changing values anyway, and even builds up evil forces that cling to these seemingly good movements (look at Roe v. Wade). If you have children, you’d understand this. We need to also inspire, teach, and befriend. Neither party figured this balance out.

So far the meilos for voting republican or democrat center around: 1) overall stances of the party on Torah values and 2) Personality/values/effectiveness of the actual leader. Both are important, but I am shocked a third critereon hasn’t been raised: which party is more conducive for a more stable and peaceful existence for us Jews, allows me to raise my family in safety, allows me to work without being mistreated for wearing a yarmulke or taking off YT, going to a store without being harrassed, etc.? Don’t forget most of our history was about pogroms, disallowing observance, and forcing us to live on the fringes of society. We are spoiled here in the U.S. Back in much of the old world, you wouldn’t bother or dare greeting your gentile neighbor, let alone lobbying the country to promote family values. Why the obsession now? Clearly we have some degree of responsibility to promote sheva mitzvos, etc. But I favor democrats by and large to stand by my right to live as a frum Jew. Although republican-supported school vouchers help us finanially, you’d generally find a gay or hipster democrat from NY would likely stick up for a Jew more than a Republican goy from Boise. Just be a decent person and you will see they are not all Jew-haters. The Democratic party always helps the minorities. Yes, there live-and-let-live ideaology can be problematic as there are radicals who want to ban shechita and bris milah. But not most. Change people through engaging them and respecting them as people, not through legisation which doesn’t effectively work anyway.
And remember that while there are many Christian repblicans who strive for wholesome family values and may respect us, many many christian republicans are “culturally” Christian and have 0 regard for you or me.

Syag – “in all fairness that applies equally to people on both sides of the issue.”

Yes, I suppose I could be stubborn since my mind is made up. But it’s made up based on facts such as the ones OrechDin points out and Ubiquitin, in post #1939864 above. Whereas to the frustrations of many, allegations of fraud are not backed up. And while yes, it’s hard for me and you to prove conclusively, no one seems to confront the reality or address that the recounts, data, testimony of experts, etc. belies any major fraud. So in the end if it’s just a hypothetical “well you never know.” Fine. But for some reason that hypothrtical concern of election fraud never flared up in 2016 when Trump won, or for Obama’s victories for that matter. Why? Because it was Trump who pushed this after he lost, and he’ll take things as far as he can, as we’ve seen.
Could you agree with that to any extent?

Re: Health “And how did the Nazis come to Power?!? With a Democratic Germany.”

The typical system of governance for most of human history has been ultimately based on “might makes right.” If my side is physically stronger, than I could subjugate you to any rule I wish. And if you have a good life, that’s only because I happen to have mercy on you. Democracy attempts to end or at least limit this notion by making the leaders more accountable to its citizens. So it’s a noble idea, albeit there are obvious kinks. The kinks are most manifest when people disregard these democratic principles, like ignoring votes or engaging in violent overthrow.

Another obvious annoyance with our democracy, as you allude, is when you personally and morally don’t like certain laws in place, such as abortion. But it’s better than a Christian coming to power who c.v.s. makes you go to church and bans Yiddishkeit (as an aside, a poll last year shows that something like 80% of fundamentalist Christians wanted to institute “christian law” in the U.S.). Despite this annoyance, at least democracy gives you a chance to win people over to your viewpoint with your obvious chein and budding intellect. Compare that with Kabul or Iraq where people blow each other up in order to implement their religious laws on others. Want to move there? Until Moshiach comes, I’ll take democracy.

Germany’s democracy wasn’t the reason for the authoritarian regime. Yes, a democracy allows bad people to introduce their dangerous views and possibly come to power. But that’s a given in a might-makes-right society. In fact, it was Hitler’s doing away with democracy that helped him to do what he did (like canceling elections, for one!). In the end, a stable democracy depends on maintaining your good faith in the system. And its ability to protect people’s rights better than a ‘might-makes-right’ system depends on maintaining good neighbors.

Health: Re: “Where did you get from – the Fake News Media?”
Greetings. I will be glad to answer and even educate a little if you would first please kindly see what I wrote, marked 11:29 last night, and then please provide some thoughtful responses to my questions. Though I’d like to hear others’ comments too, this is like a one-last-chance in my mind to see if you can bring yourself to a modicum of balance and critical thinking. It’s an opprtunity for you to shine some much needed emes in our broken world, rather than playing the role of just another broad-swooping activist with the circular reasoning and unsubstanitated speghetti-at-the-wall consipracy theories. I’m not asking you to agree, just to acknowledge and address some basic points of fact. Thanks.

Health – You seem to admit some reasons why Biden (and Trump) received more votes than unusual (i.e. mail-ins). So you lost on that part of the Federalist’s argument. The question then becomes one of fraud, which many rational posts break down for you is unlikely, if you take the time to review them truthfully. By your responses to Ubiq, you’re more interested in your conclusion than the emes. All polls showed Biden as winning so you can’t ignore that. By the way, it seems Trump’s former supporters in the suburbs turned on him. That explains the urban-suburban “anomoly.” And the fact that republicans overwelmingly won in the suburbs further shows that they specifically voted against Trump but still favor republicans over democrats. Your proof that Biden cheated is “The only way Biden could beat Trump is with Cheating.” Circular argument. I haven’t seen any compelling facts so far from pro-Trump camp so I vote the winner thus far is there was no fraud. And please don’t try to take away my vote 🙂

I appreciate your ambition and your dedication to seeking and establishing emes. My initial take however, is that I’ve noticed most people who have posted corruption allegations are not similarly searching for the truth and are singly guided by their support for Trump. If there are exceptions, I apologize, and I have seen a few instances of open-mindedness in the CR. But if someone would be interested in emes, they would take a few minutes before posting to visit the freely available resources online to see these allegations have typically been debunked, at least the ones I’ve seen.
It seems people alleging corruption are only visiting news sources with one single agenda. I’ve also heard a lot of, “I don’t bother with the news, this is just what I hear.” At best, this is tantamount to the same thing (at worst, it’s just shielding themselves from any scrutiny and responsibility).

As a practical matter, it seems like such a topic would require lots of moderation; so many allegations in a long thread will be disjointed. Might be more effective to be able to categorize chats around distinct issues.

Response to Red Adair on first post: I appreciate your reasonableness. I did not vote for Trump this time around, but your post proves to me there are indeed fair-minded Trump supporters who value democracy, that you’re willing to accept the defeat with the longer-term win of upholding a system that has provided our country with stability. With all the faults of our democratic system, it’s better than ‘might-makes-right’ power grabs we see in South America. That’s my take, anyway, I don;t want to put words in yoru mouth. I didn’t vote for Trump exactly because he is doing so far exactly what I feared: not respecting America’s democracy as you and I do. I am more inclined towards Biden on policy, but this fear was my biggest for going with Biden.
Homeland Security recently said this year’s election was the safest ever (and then Trump fired the guy…). Having said that, if there hypothetically was widespread fraud and that fraud changed the election, I would not deligitimitize Trump’s second term.

Rightwriter: The main thrust of your response was ‘who cares if Trump deligitimizes the election and sues, since Biden was planning to do that too.’ I believe emes nisht sheker is accurate in response to your Hillary point, albeit it was probably dumb for Hillary to speak that way. And not only is she not a candidate, but no democrats these days care about her opinion anyway. I voted for Trump in 2016, btw. As for the prolonged protests (or ‘riots’ as you call them), I don’t see how that helps Biden. BLM marches worked to get Trump more votes, and unfortunately Trump could use future protests against his coup-attempt as a pretext to bring in the military now that he’s replaced pentagon with loyalists. His policies may be more friendly to Israel (for now), but once you go down that road, it’s a step towards dictatorship, as in the disctatorships that led our grandparents to flee America. Maybe not as bad, but why go in that direction? Our parents and grandparents liked the stability of a democracy and the limits on power. Hopefully Trump is just talking a big game. But in the meantime he is destabilizing our country and showing dictatorships around the world it’s OK if might equals right.
But the bigger takeaway from your response seems to be that you agree with my point #s 2, 3 and 4.