ubiquitin

Not really

It isnt “your thread” You don’t own it, you didnt pay for it . You start a topic that interests you, if people like it they comment if not they don’t. Sometimes, as is the nature of human conversation, topics shift usually m’iniyan linyan be’oso inyan, but sometimes over time it changes and moves more from the original to a new inyan . You can try to bring it back and if people like your comment they will reply. But I don’t think people are required to reply only within the narrow confines of the orignal OP.

Health

“The reason why Trump beat Obama is because Obama let the flood gates open to this country (more pop.)”

I dont follow wouldn’t that more population viote for Biden? Maybe thats How he won!
At least try to sort of make sense sense in your nonsense

“The only way Biden could beat Trump is with Cheating!”

So stick to that prove that ignore all the polls that has Biden ahead, and prove he couldnt win with cheating that is the task of this thread.
I know you think repeating things over and over with exclamation points is proof. But it just isn’t

All I am replying to is one specific point. Namely the Fderalis comment that It is unlikely for Biden to have beaten Obama

Which his completely true. BUT it ignores the (more unlikely) fact that Trump “beat” Obama too. Can you provide any poll that showed Trump at a higher approval rating on election day than Obama on his?

same as Goldilocks

Ive toiveled several George Forman grills sandwich makers , hot water urns, the pizza maker from betty crocker over the years. LEt them sit for week before using and havent had any problems.

Never anything electronic with a display screen like Keurigs

rational

“One good article is by The Federalist titled “5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms”.”

It isn’t a good article it is fluff disguised by fancy wording

Lets start with their first “anomaly ”

“Candidate Joe Biden was so effective at animating voters in 2020 that he received a record number of votes, more than 15 million more than Barack Obama received in his re-election of 2012.”

Now this is true. But Trump also got millions more votes than Obama did in 2013 6 or so million more. Obama was far more popular nationally in 2012 than Trump is in 2020. SO unless you are arguing that the fraud gave millions of extra votes to both candidates but more to Biden than Trump this argument doesn’t make any sense.

Trump won the 2nd most votes from any candidate in history, sadly his opponent got even more. But that shouldn’t be surprising .Nationally Biden was ahead in (nearly) EVERY poll. As many votes as you’d expect Trump to get, you’d Expect Biden to get more (of course the nationa lvote isnt wha matters but that is what this example discusses)

As to WHY there were so many voters this year , thats a fair discussion population growth? Ease of voting by mail? After decades of being told “This is the most important election in our lives “people believed it? Hatred of Trump ? Hatred of AOC? Love of Trump? Any combination of the above.

But any argument that alleges fraud because Biden got more votes than Obama has to explain how Trump pulled the same feat.

Their second argument
“Biden is set to become the first president in 60 years to lose the states of Ohio and Florida on his way to election”

These kind of “rules” are silly. things change. There have been only 46 presidents elected in the US history . see xkcd’s excellent cartoon entitled “electoral precedent” wit h a fellow making his predictions 1788 “no candidate has ever been elected”
1792 “no incumbent has ever been elected”
…
2000 “No republican has won without Vermont ”
2012 ” No democrat can win without Missouri”

Torahvaluesoverparty

” Then this happened….”

then what happened? Whats in the box? Is it dinner menus? Trump Tax returns? Rolodes with plumbers who operate late at night? Who knows

Make Sure bill Bar gets the video (hopefully he is on Yeshiva World and has access to this wiki) Send it To Gulliani so he can bring it to a 42nd court hearing or however many they are up to.

But You (and I) dont know what you looking out just because someone narrates it.

Fixed it for you

“I want to open a forum to discuss the facts alone”

The problem is this is almost impossible to do.

I’m skeptical that anyone here is equipped to investigate a allegation. Weve all seen video of People walking around a room as a narrator says “here is a poll worker taking Biden votes counting them again, taking Trump votes throwing them in a shredder etc” Is this a fact? OF course not.

We can share all the various allegations from today until tomorrow those who support one way. Is it at all plausible that a Biden van showed up full of ballots that they carted into a polling place in NEvada? Did the star witness the Trump campaign put up in Michigan , Melissa Carrone, who appeared drunk and had to be shushed by Guilliani seem even remotely credible?

If you want to beleive then of course it is plausible and of course she does.

But without the ability to investigate we don’t have any real way of knowing. so listing thess ” “allegations” and yes, allegations is pointless.

What is more useful is creating a wiki of those who CAN and HAVE investigated .
People like judges who have heard evidence and ruled one way or the other – these are useful facts. Certainly pointing out party of affiliation of judges is fact too that may be relevant

so here is one fellow who unlike people here CAN actually investigate allegations Attorney General Bill Barr (appointed by Trump) said “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election”

This “can be factually confirmed and verified with sources.” so it satisfies your criteria.

syag
“know me too well to use the term cult member on me”

The distinction between Trump’s 19 books describing how smart rich and good at deal making he is, as not being indicative of a narcissist personality because they are not “memoirs” but Obama’s 2 memoirs are sign of narcissist could only be made by a cultist

RE

There are a few minor inaccuracies in your discussion on the calendar

“whereas Jewish holdays are determined through the moon. Pesach is spring and Succos fall time”

This is a bit contradictory if holidays are by the moon then they have nothing to do with seasons. The truth is holidays are based on BOTH the moon and the sun. The DATE is based on the moon but has to be in right season based on the sun.

“that lunar year having normally 354 days”
There isnt really such a thing as a “lunar year*” we take 12 months and call it a year these years can vary 353, 354, 355 years of course there are leap years with 13 months with 383, 384, 385 days. I’m not sure what you mean by “normally” having 354 days. This isnt the most common length for a year (mode) nor the average (mean) . The average length for a year (rounded to the nearest whole number) is actually 365 exactly as you said to keep it in sync with the sun.

This is why the Gemara in Makkos says Hasatan = 364 corresponding to the days of the year minus Yom kipppur. Many wonder why use the “goyish calendar” or the “solar calendar” The answer is simple. The number of days in an (average) Jewish year is 365 (rounded to the whole number). There is no such thing a “Days in a lunar year” A lunar year doesn’t have days it has 12 lunar months . For example see Megillah 5a Where we learn “lechodshei hashana” that we count months for a year not days. see RAshi there. If we DID count days the number of days in a year is 365 and if someone made a neder not to drink wine for a year if you count by days would have to wait 11 days longer . But we DON’t count days we count Months so after 12 months can drink wine again. it might be 3 53, 354 or 355 days but we dont count days.

“The variation of the two months above causes the movement of Rosh Hashanah as Adu lo Rosh,”

The opposite is true Lo Adu Rosh (and other dechuyos) determine how many days are in kislev and cheshvan . the Molad for Tishrei 5782 is Monday Night. Because the molad is after noon Rosh Hashana is pushed to Tuesday. Because Rosh hashana is pushed to Tuesday (not pushed because Lo adu rosh, but principle is the same), and thsi past Rosh Hashana was Shabbos we need a calendar with 353 days So we make both cheshvan and Kislev chaser with 29 days “subtracting” a day from the 354 days we get by having 6 months of 29 alternatign with 6 months 30 ( (6×30)+(6×29) = 354).
The reason why we don;t want Rosh hashana on Friday or Wednesday is to avoid Y”K on Sunday or Friday which see R”H 20a

(* Similarly, there isnt really such a thing a solar month. We take a solar year (approximately 365 days) and divide it into 12 arbitrary chunks of time varying 31/30 days (and one 28) )

These are admittedly minor “inaccuracies” and forgive my nitpicking. I just enjoy the topic

syag

“Im not a cultist”

you are .

Normally your posts sort of make sense. When it comes to Trump you throw all sense out the window. for example “He didn’t say book, he said memoir. Bush wrote one memoir. Only 497 pages. Obama wrote at least 2. Trump wrote none.”

In this context what’s the difference between a book and a memoir? The books Trump wrote aren’t novels they are books extolling how great he (allegedly) is. Ive read several of them. They are not much different than memoirs (Except less heavy on fact)
This is how one review described ArT of the Deal . “Part memoir and part how-to, this is the first book by Trump, the billionaire New York real estate developer who looks like a movie star and acts like a showboat gambler. ”

And don’t forget how we got here it was in response to someone pointing out “I think mainly he is a supreme narcissist” [regarding Trump]
Is there any doubt that a person who says “I alone can fix it” is a supreme narcissist? There shouldn’t be for non-cult members .

“Give me liberty or give me death”

what an interesting maamar chazal. Where can it be found? is it Bavli? Yerushalmi? Medrash?
Are You sure we pasken that way Lemayseh? I cant seem to find it in Shulchan Aruch

BYM

congratulations on almost graduating. Enjoy 4th year it is a much needed break between the bust years behind you and the busy years ahead. MAzel tov on your children as well

Years ago we had a discussion
as to whether “calculus, chemistry (maybe?), physics and organic chemistry” were ” necessary for the practice of medicine”

BTL Advice and Planning

Now that you have completed your some actual rotations in third year. I’m curios how often any of those subjects came up in the “practice of medicine” ?

“So it is – but that’s the point of the Wiley article. The people that use it, whether in the Medical field or not, Should Stop using it!”

Meh. This may surprise you Oksana H. Baltarowich MD does not get to regulate speech
and more to the point, regardless of what you want to call it. Ectopic pregnancies in the uterus exist. See the Wiley article.

“A.- I don’t care what some dictionaries do – let them read the Wiley article.”

It doesn’t matter what you care about. It matters what lawyers who write the laws (and judges who interpret them) care about, and what dictionary they read What if they dont stumble across the wiley article like you did?

“B. – You can’t call Interstitial pregnancies – Intrauterine, because they are outside the endometrial cavity.”
Stop grasping its in the uterus. period. (and again even if it wasn’t it is still a pregnancy)

Look this conversation is boring. You are the first I’ve heard claim there is no such thing as a pregnancy that threatens the mother’s life. though I did fins a quack who made a similar argument online though she since retracted (referenced above). I have enough experience with you to know you arent capable of retracting.

I have Chazal, and poskim on my side who all refer to cases where a mother’s life is endangered. Sadly I have real world experience too. Nobody I know in real life thinks these things don’t exist. If you are forced to redefine basic words like “pregnancy”, “abortion” and “uterus” to back up your bizarre claim (and if any ONE of those words maintains its Webster’s definition your point is wrong)

If you have any specific question. I’d be happy to answer otherwise believe whatever you want

policy can always be undone
I have heard from most of my friends that Obama was the worst President for ISrael. Yet these same friends extoll the virtues of Trump, and how Israel is in the best position it has ever been.

Changing character is much much harder. Trump has had a corrosive effect on Americna politics, undoing it is much harder than undoing any policy that you dont like. 4 more years of this would make it almost impossible to undo

GH

” but our newest Associate Justice refused to classify Roe in her listing of “super precedents” such as Brown v. Board of Ed”

Brown vs Board of Ed is another great example of “originalists” abandoning their originalism. No “originalist” would dream of saying it was wrongly decided although obviously the 14th amendment was not meant (nor intended). As you point out Amy Coan Barret labeled it a “super-precedent”
Scalia would often be asked about this, which angered him once complaining “Waving the bloody shirt of Brown again, eh?” He did try to defend it on numerous occasions, though not very convincingly.

anon
“It applies to Federal and State legislation as well the Constitution, and they oppose judicial activism”
Yes obviously

Yet Kavanaugh engaged in judicial activism, when it suited him. I didnt say the entire opinion was an example. I specifically said his third reason
In his third reason he makes a case that we need the results of an election right away. including this bizzare sentence “want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election”
THIS argument is pure judicial activism No where in the constitution does it say results must be available on election day.
This is not an argument neither based on a textual nor originalist interpretation of the constitution. IT is pure activism driven by his desired outcome

(GH, yes they are different but they are related and in this conversation the difference is largely inconsequential . furthermore “originalism” is sometimes used to refer to “original intent” and sometimes “original meaning” while original intent would include secondary sources , motivations behind the law etc, “original meaning typically does not and is pretty much the same as “textualism”)

akuperma
“There are five originalists, but that doesn’t guarantee a right wing decision,”

I like the gist of your post but this isnt true. “originalist” is just an excuse used by the right when they want to limit the protection of the constitution. It works to their favor, that the framers had more limited view too . nobody argues that Free speech/press doesnt cover internet speech, (although originally it didnt obviosuly) because that isnt something they want to limit.
Look at the great originalist Scalia, he creatively reinterpreted the 14th amendment when he wanted to give the Republican the presidency.
If that is ancient history for you, look no further than this week Kavanaugh’s decision thrid reason makes a passionate defense of having results counted by “election day” however this is not mentioned in the constitution

Health love it!!

“Removal is not an Abortion.
So Abortion could become Illegal!”

Lets make everyone happy.
Abortion is banned, only embryo or fetus removal is allowed .
I assume reduction and termination would be ok too. But no abortion!

Akuperma
I liked most of your post. It might make you feel better though to consider that “originalist” isn’t really a thing. Nobody would argue the constitution doesn’t protect internet speech although originally obviously it didn’t. “Originalist” is used as a magic word to reduce protections by interpreting the constitution as narrowly as possible. If they want to protect something they forget to be originality (like scalia in Bush v Gore with his creative reinterpretation of the 14th amendment)
So bottom line is it depends more on what the judges want to protect than on how they claim to view the constitution

There is a lot of confusion in this thread

“Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Lawrence v. Texas (2003),” will no be overturned, and there wont even be cases brought (to the supreme court) to overturn them.

” and Roe v. Wade (1973)”
Doubtful it will be overturned.
Though even if it is, keep in mind it will still be up to states. In most states it will remain legal in a few states it might be curtailed.

“I’ve Posted this Before – with Modern Medicine – there is No Such Thing!”

This is pure ignorance. To use the least controversial example tubal pregancy.

“Even before Roe v Wade mother’s whose lives were endangered were permitted to abort to save their lives. Reversing Roe v. Wade would not change that.”
Who decides what constitutes “lives were endangered” ?

commonsaychel

meh

You’d be hard pressed to convince me (or anyone) that you put up a Trump sign on your lawn simply as a matter of taste. Ie you find it aesthetically pleasing like you do your rose bushes

It is pretty clear that the sign is there to announce and publicize your political preference. Granted the announcement is limited to your neighbors and whoever passes by but it is the same announcement made by the parade to non-neighbors in Manhattan.

I’m not sure why owning the house is relevant, I’m pretty sure all thoe Trump flags where on cars owned by their owners too.

By what measure did you declared that Yitzchok Dovid Smith is a “very smart person”? That he sounds smart?”

No that is definitely not the reason

always

what is your view on the updated Biden’s position on packing – he will tell us some time before election. That is, he can’t say he will not to lose one group of voters, he cannot tell us he won’t not to lose another group and, well, he apparently cannot say nothing as he is losing a third group …
maybe we can find his positions on Hunter’s Mac?

Love his position.
I personally hope we will pack the court. However as it would scare some people away, I dont want him to lose votes over it. And I dont feel strongly enough about it that his not willing to pack the court would make me vote against him (hard to imagine any such person)
So not saying anything is the perfect strategy.

Avi

No the democrats are being (more) consistent. Their position is simply: follow precedent
in 2016 the precedent was to nominate and hold hearings even in an election year.
Then it changed that we no longer do that.
So Democrats say ok, fine follow the new precedent

Republican’s are now saying No we changed outr minds again, “Do what you can changing the rules as you go.”( my choice C above, As always grants) Democrats will know once again follow this precedent Ok do what yu want to get ahead, this includes court packing.

“Part of that rejection means – in plain language – Senate is in R- hands and they have power to withhold consent”

Again, that’s not what happened. Mcconell didn’t even hold hearings. He didnt allow the senate to consent or reject. Mcconell isnt “the senate” he is but one of 100.

“. I think the future court packing part of the argument is more interesting”

Its not. It is 100% justifiable based on Republicans actions.

Simple question what is the republican view on holding confirmation hearings in an election year?
A. Hold them
B. Dont hold them
C. Do what you can changing the rules as you go.

Right now Republicans opted for c. You should expect the dems to follow suit doing what they can to get ahead

1
“They didn’t confirm the communist judge that Obama appointed ”

Except that isnt what happened.

Republicans didnt hold any hearings because they said “no nominations in an election year”

Now they changed their mind, because, by definition, Republicans are liars .

If they held a hearing and didn’t confirm him because he “was a communist judge” THAT would not be inconsistent (unless today they did confirm a “communist judge” )

but that isn’t what happened. Stop lying, you sound like a republican chas veshalom

som1

“here’s just a few parts of the green new deal thats not “standard in the civilized world…”
so sorry youve been tricked and lied to by republicans

“(i) high-quality health care; ” – standard

“(iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.” – standard (surprised this is even controversial really your opposed to clean water and air now?)

” (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; ” standard

“iii) high-speed rail. ” standard

and of the other items listed. although not (yet) standard all seem like excellent ideas and goals. Granted not feasible, but neither was a border wall with mexico. At least these are worthy goals.

“FYI it seems you didn’t learn this in first grade but the government can’t just print out trillions of dollars it just doesn’t work like that”
Mexico will pay for it.

For space force, you found money in the budget but for “clean water” (your post) thats where you draw the line? spare me

Syag

Here is your question”

“I myself saw the wire under his jacket and piece in his cuff. I refuse to accept the words of trolls at face value. If it isn’t something that wasn’t supposed to be there, than what was it?”

The answer is straight forward. If you look at clear image it is a crease. THAT is the answer to your original question

I too love understanding different views. So help me understand yoru view

If I ask ” Why would someone support Trump if he refuses to condemn white supremacists”

In your view replying “What do you mean he did condemn them, he said “sure” when asked to condemn”
Isnt answering the question since the question was really “what would someone who sees no wrong in Trump think if they hear something odd” Not did he condemn or not. Is that correct?

“Not only did i answer your irrelevent question,”

I’m so sorry, I cant find your reply. Do you mind pointing me in the direction.
My question again:
Did you get a chance to look at the clearer images? do you still think it was a wire?

“i told you i wasn’t curious about the wire”
Yes I know you dont care about the faulty premise of your question. But please oblige me for old time’s sake