Tuesday, November 17, 2020

The Extremists At Both Ends

I just made a largely futile attempt to make peace between two people. They have a lot in common, and deep down they love each other, but they fell out about something. Each was convinced that the other person was acting absolutely terribly. It was deeply frustrating to me that neither was trying to see the situation from other person's perspective. But I shouldn't have been surprised; it was just a microcosm of what is happening to society in general, at least in the US.

As a Brit living in Israel, I had the luxury of not having to decide who to vote for in the US elections. Nor do I take much interest in the domestic affairs of the US. I was able to somewhat detachedly observe the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Which, of course, instantly put me at odds with the vast majority of Americans, who only see strengths in their own side and only weaknesses in the other, due to the enormous psychological power of confirmation bias.

I didn't think that the divisions in the US could get any more extreme. But I was wrong.

On the one hand, you have a CNN anchor comparing the actions of Trump to the start of the Nazi Holocaust (fortunately, she has since apologized). And I got into an argument with someone who insisted that everyone is obligated to hate every single one of the 69 million people who voted for Trump, with no forgiveness ever (if they don't repent). There was absolutely no willingness to be open to the possibility that there could be good people who sincerely believe that Trump and the associated Republican party is overall beneficial for the US (or less bad than the alternative).

At the other end of the spectrum is Trump himself, destroying the 240-year-old legacy of both Democrats and Republicans in trying to tear apart the country rather than concede defeat. And some of his supporters have very strange beliefs. I got into an argument with someone who shared a photo of Trump with the description, "Loving Dad, Husband, Greatest President Donald Trump." I'm not going to get into an argument with someone about whether Trump is a good president (I'm too distant to make such evaluations), but what on earth would lead someone to say that he is a "loving husband"?! Are they unaware that he divorced his first two wives, and has actually bragged about multiple extra-marital affairs? The eventual response was that he is an amazing president and Biden is awful. Which only strengthened my objection: Why would his actions as a president mean that he is necessarily a loving husband?!

It seems that the ultimate manifestation of tribalism is that not only is "your guy" the best person to serve as president; he is the best person, period. He is a perfect person in every respect. I saw someone else write that he is "a truly selfless great man, who hides it so well." (Indeed, he hides it amazingly well!) He is someone to be lionized and idolized. (And there are others who idolize him in most bizarre ways.)

It is crucial for everyone to learn about how Confirmation Bias shapes both your thoughts and those of other people (so that you don't condemn them as evil or insane). It is crucial to learn about the power of tribalism over both your psyche and that of others. The alternative is for society to tear itself apart.

(Cue: comments from people saying that as a non-American I just don't get it, because it's obvious that the other side is just totally evil.)

 

See too this post: The Black And White Problem

114 comments:

  1. "And I got into an argument with someone who insisted that everyone is obligated to hate every single one of the 69 million people who voted for Trump,"

    My suggestion: don't waste your time debating partisan topics - no-one in the history of the internet has ever changed their mind because someone else convinced them of the truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wouldn't this require that tochecha be given before allowing hate (lo tisneh)?
      kt

      Delete
  2. and is rumored to have had multiple extra-marital affairs

    Not rumored. He has bragged about them openly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I googled and you are correct. Will amend the post.

      Delete
    2. Ain Adam maysim atzmo rasha. Pure braggadocio?

      Delete
    3. Ain adam maysim atzmo rasha. Pure braggadocio?

      Delete
    4. So did Biden. Did you see how he likes to sniff girls' hair? Indeed, Kamala accused him of sexual misconduct and said that we had to believe the woman. Period. However, when he chose her to be VP, she dropped the charges.

      Delete
    5. I checked the dictionary and claims of sniffing hair are not adultery.
      English is a language of words, each of which has a distinct meaning.
      Jason from Jersey

      Delete
    6. Should google how biden met his current wife

      Delete
    7. Maybe not the sniffing of hair, but Phony Kamala accused Biden of sexual misconduct twice and insisted that we believe the women. However, whenever Biden chose her as his VP, she conveniently dropped the charges. Why?

      Lastly, Joe Biden had two aneurysms, affecting his ability to think, speak, and remember. Should he really be in charge of the nuclear football?

      Delete
    8. Biden also was involved with a married woman.
      At least he married her, though his church which he claims to attend every Sunday doesn't recognize the remarriage.

      2. The hair thing involves young girls too, which is considered child sexual molestation.

      Delete
  3. Why would Trump "concede defeat" when there was obvious fraud to try and steal the election? Not that he needs their approbation, but the democrats themselves spoke at length about the need for a fair election when they went to the Supreme Court in 2000. Trump is doing exactly what he should be doing. If new elections are ordered in the states where the fraud occurred, then we will get a proper election as we should have had. If the Court determines the election cannot be set aside notwithstanding the fraud, then Trump will step aside and Biden will become an illegitimate president. If the democrats really think their guy honestly came by 80 million votes [more than anyone in history, and 15 million more than Obama], then they have nothing to worry about a re-election.

    The rest of your post is just unfounded projections of your own way of thinking, and not really worthy of comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Why would Trump "concede defeat" when there was obvious fraud to try and steal the election?'

      Can you clarify if you are talking about the 2016 or 2020 election? Trump claimed massive fraud in both and even set up a commission to investigate. Are you aware what they found in 2016?

      Rule of thumb: if you are required to assert that something is "obvious" then it isn't obvious and probably isn't true. Otherwise you just give the evidence and move on.

      Delete
    2. I plotzed laughing when I read your comments. You should use the initials CG (Comic Genius). But when I showed your comment to my co-worker, he said "The guy's serious; DF stands for Dumb Fool." Can you tell me who is right, me or him?

      Delete
    3. You are living in a fantasy world. There was no "obvious fraud to try and steal the election." This has been confirmed by every official, Republican or Democrat, that was involved in the actual administering of the election.

      Delete
    4. You clearly haven't been following the news or watching Senator Cruz who said yesterday one woman was formally charged with 132 counts of election fraud recently. If you're only watching CNN and living in their propaganda bubble you should remain silent.

      Delete
    5. "there was obvious fraud to try and steal the election?"

      The obvious fraud was by Trump to try to steal the election. This was the strategy:
      1) Prevent the US Postal Service from delivering ballots on time in Democratic areas. This affected hundreds of thousands of votes in Detroit and Philadelphia alone. The New York Post, which is a Trump propaganda rag even covered this: https://nypost.com/2020/11/04/usps-says-huge-amount-of-mail-in-ballots-were-not-delivered/

      2) Have legal goons go to court to prevent these legal ballots from legal voters from being counted. In Pennsylvania, they succeeded -- one of the few lawsuits they have won.

      But the scam failed. Biden won and it wasn't close. Time to move on.

      Delete
    6. I love the conflation between specific fraud occurences to "the election was stolen".

      There is and always will be missed ballots, a shady mailman throwing away mail ins, computer glitches, dead votes etc. We live in a country of 350,000,000 people and should expect these things to a certain extent (law of large numbers).

      The amount of the above that would be necessary to have any meaningful impact on the results is complete dreamstuff.

      The Media being biased (true) and a mailman throwing out a few ballots will never prove your point.

      (There are two types of trump voters: Fanboys and Stategics. The latter understand the phenomenon and why it is happening and expect things from trump like this. The former take the actually claim seriously.)

      Delete
    7. Elie,

      Cruz is (1) wrong, and (2) irrelevant.

      It was a man who was charged with voter fraud, and it was 134 counts not 132. It was an attempt to get absentee ballots for mentally incapacitated persons in an institution, who are ineligible to vote under Texas law. It was discovered before they could vote, and Trump won Texas anyway.

      There was another case in California where someone trying to run for mayor of a city in a nonpartisan election tried to falsify absentee ballot applications. He got caught too.

      This is actually proof that the system works and that there was no successful fraud other than Trump preventing Democratic votes from being delivered by the postal service.

      Delete
    8. @DF, I definitely think there was fraud. In Philadelphia, for example, they blacked out the windows. But although there was fraud, the question should be: were there enough? It seems as though there was some fraud but not enough to change the results of the election. Biden will be the next legitimate president.

      But Trump will be back in 2024. And this time the China plague will no longer exist. I have a theory, that China and Biden planned this to happen. they planned for coronavirus so they could do mail-in voting. I think mail-in voting is insane as most mail-in votes are from people who have no idea about politics and only hear what CNN is shouting. People who wouldn't get out to vote otherwise. A fair election in 2024 happens without these "never-voters".

      Delete
    9. David Ohsie, they spent millions of dollars and 4 years and concluded that there was no Russian collusion in 2016. Get over it!

      To others: Chris Wallace of Fox news admits there was no fraud. However, that does not mean that they can't find fraud in the election results. I do not trust Democrats and they are notorious for frauding elections around the world. 

      Delete
    10. @Charlie Hall, Actually, it's the other way around. Democrats fraud this election, not Trump. for example, in Philadelphia alone, they blacked out the windows so Republicans can't help count the votes in the counting process.

      Sigh. Biden won and they still attack Trump>?

      Delete
    11. Some of you are delusional. The existence of widespread fraud is not in question, only a few partisans still try to deny it. But that's not the issue. The democrats never thought they'd be able to hide the fraud. What they *did* count on, however, is republicans not having the will or the stomach to fight it. But they didn't realize that its a new day in town, and Republicans are no longer in the mood to be stepped on. And they certainly didn't count on Ginzberg dying.

      Oh, they'll use their media to the fullest to mock the challenges, or present it as a fait accomplish or conspiracy theory, or whatever. But the media is no longer the potent force it once was. And there are 5 Justices on the Supreme Court - a solid majority - who cannot be moved by media blandishments (unlike RINO's like Roberts and Kennedy before him.)

      So WILL they order new elections? I don't know. Nobody knows. But some of these Justices have been personally insulted and dragged through the mud by democrats, one of them by Biden himself. That kind of thing gives you a certain insight into the law. They *might* say there's nothing that can be done about the fraud, in which case, as I said, Trump sets aside and Biden becomes a tainted, illegitimate president. However, they might step in to right the wrong. The majority might perceive that the law requires them to do that, the same way liberal majorities of the past invented ways to assert jurisdiction over homosexual marriage and school prayer. It's not hard for gods to do that.

      So, for anyone convincing himself that this is over, or that Trump doesn't have a shot and should just give up - you're fooling yourself. This is not over, not by a long shot.

      Delete
    12. @Turk Hill

      My understanding is that no-one doubts that Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election, to destabilize the US system generally and to promote Trump specifically.

      The disagreement is exactly as you say -- about whether the Trump campaign colluded (actively worked with) the Russians to make this happen.

      Delete
    13. @TH China-Biden conspiracy - such a theory is delusional and irrational.

      Delete
    14. Idiotic "rabbi". One should concede when there is obvious massive fraud? When there are more votes in some districts than registered voters? Seriously?

      Delete
    15. @BDA again, your are in dreamland. Show me one VERIFIED county with more votes than registered voters. Moreover show me COMPETENT and WELL RESPECTED individuals who are taking that claim seriously.

      Argument like these reflect the fault/round earth debates I watch on youtube. A case study in fundamentalism.

      Delete
    16. @DF, @BDA,

      The problem with the "evidence of widespread fraud" is that when asked for the actual evidence, it turns out to be inconsequential.

      Photos claiming to show some fraudulent action turn out to have been taken years ago. Allegations of more votes than registered voters turn out to be someone reading the column headings on a chart incorrectly. Incidents of ballot-box stuffing turn out to be attempts at ballot-box stuffing that were thwarted by election officials.

      In particular, I find it very telling that the closer a person is to the actual voting and vote-counting process, the less likely they are to believe there was massive fraud, and that this applies regardless of political affiliation (Republican officials involved in the 'disputed' elections believe the elections were fair). The people alleging fraud tend to be looking in on the process from the outside and seizing on Twitter rumours.

      Delete
    17. Only a few partisans try to deny the alleged widespread election fraud? Guess that includes Trump's own lawyers (except Rudy) and many Republicans, including Lindsey Graham. The only ones *alleging* fraud are hardcore partisans.

      Delete
    18. @Sleepy Joe Q, (don't take it personally) Actually, the Dems spent millions of dollars and 4 years and found no evidence of Russian interference. Putin even admitted that there was no collusion.

      Meanwhile, China influenced our election when they helped spread the China virus, causing masses of fraudulent mail-in ballots.

      Delete
    19. Joe Q - you're not getting it. I'll say it again: the fraud is not the issue. What do you think your party wanted mail-in ballots for? You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but that is how the Supreme Court will see it, and that's all that matters.

      The ONLY question will be if they set the results aside. It is clearly within their jurisdiction to do so, as your guy himself admitted in 2000. In fact, I'd be surprised if they *didn't* set the results in several states aside, possibly even with Roberts joining the majority, and maybe, if they have any decency, the other Justices too, however begrudingly. However, I do acknowledge the possibility that they will find it impossible to undo the fraud. If so, Biden will become a tainted, illegitimate president. Small consolation, I know, but still.

      Delete
    20. I just don't get the Turk Hill and DF comments.
      They are just shooting out statements, regardless of the actual meaning of the words they use.
      Obvious means something, yet nothing has been shown, even non-obvious things.
      TH seems to think that blacking out windows is corruption or fraud. Which dictionary is he using?

      There is nothing partisan about disbelieving fraud claims. Just common sense.
      Jason from Jersey

      Delete
    21. @Jason, let me explain. By blacking out windows and refusing Republican poll counters to enter, you can do whatever you what. Whether that is counting real ballots or inventing them, the sky is the limit. Thus, unless proven, it seems to me that the Dems used fraud. Now, I would be very surprised if they didn't since they are notorious for frauding elections. 

      Delete
    22. Actually, Jason from Jersey, refusing to acknowledge fraud of this magnitude is the very definition of partisan. By contrast, the standard used to set aside an election is a legal question, which is usually also partisan, but not necessarily so. We shall have to see.

      Delete
    23. Blacking out windows prevents outsiders from looking in. The Republican observers that were obligated to be inside, were. In a non-zero amount.
      Jason from Jersey

      Delete
    24. @Turk Hill: What does the Russia investigation have anything to do with this? Trump won in 2016, Clinton conceded, Obama hosted him in the White House and a transition was immediately initiated. Biden won this election, and Trump is obstructing the transition. Romney conceded. McCain conceded. Kerry Conceded. Gore conceded and Bush 43 was given access to security briefings before the concession. Every candidate from both parties had conceded once the election has been called.

      Delete
    25. "The existence of widespread fraud is not in question, only a few partisans still try to deny it." Only a few partisans like the Republican Georgia Secretary of State and in fact all of the Republican Secretaries of state across the nation? You just love to make stuff up. In fact, only a few partisans are still claiming widespread fraud and they haven't given any evidence of such.

      Delete
    26. @Turk Hill: I see your confusion now. Yes, there was no massive fraud in 2016. But Trump asserted there was spent years investigating and turned up nothing. Same is happening here.

      Delete
    27. DH - If there was widespread fraud, how come they haven't managed to bring a single proof to the courts?

      Every single claim of fraud that was brought to the courts has been dismissed as lacking any evidence, or not being related to fraud (e.g., blacking out windows while counting votes is hardly an indication of fraud - especially if you have potentially violent demonstrators outside).

      But if you are aware of fraud - please do us all a favour and instead of rambling about it on Social Media, pass the information on to Trump's Legal team, who so far have been unable to find any hard evidence of fraud and are getting desperate.

      Here's a tip - the courts are better able to identify Election Fraud, than a bunch of people who watched a YouTube video.

      Delete
    28. @David Ohsie, we shall see. There was definitely fraud. How much is the question.

      Delete
    29. It's pointless to argue about fraud, because Biden acolytes don't read the same media as Trump supporters, so how would they possibly know? They're off in some fantasy world, told to believe that Trump is an evil man, and they dutifully believe it. So I understand the cluelessness.

      What I don't understand, save for raw naked hypocrisy, is why these acolytes are so afraid of the judicial process they so championed when Gore was busy pioneering it. Because Gore was limited to one state and Trump to several? So what?! All the more so he should be going to the Court! And do you folks not understand how the law works? Anyone can distinguish any case, its the Court that decides whether the distinction is meaningful or not. Not everyone is a lawyer, but have none of the democrats here ever learned a blatt Gemara in his life??

      Delete
    30. OMG, the conspiracy is widening. Now even Christie is in on it! Trump needs to keep his head firmly in the sand so that America can stay great!

      'Chris Christie, a Trump confidant who helped prepare the president for the debates, called the conduct of Trump’s legal team a “national embarrassment.” Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) said Trump had “exhausted all plausible legal options” and urged him to concede. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said it’s time to begin the transition.'

      Delete
    31. @DF

      What is your standard for whether fraud has occurred, or not?

      Does it suffice that someone says it happened? Do they have to provide evidence that it happened? And if so, do they have to provide that evidence in court?

      What happens when someone claims that fraud has occurred, but when asked by a court for evidence to support the claim, they are unable to provide it?

      Delete
    32. @DF, It’s pretty clear that he lost the election. Biden got more votes. And the proof is that the Republicans got a whole lot of seats in the house and senate. If there was some big conspiracy the house would have been lost and there would have been a total outcry.

      Well, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for it. Yes, there was fraud, but it’s not going to be enough to overturn the election. It’s sad but he can run in four years. See how fast that runs around. Four years runs pretty fast. As Chris Wallace says, I just don’t believe it. I don’t think there’s any evidence for it.

      He’ll have to give up. He can just run in 2024. In fact, Trump will win in 2024!

      Delete
  4. What they mean is 1) he is a loving Dad 2) he is married. Or what they really mean is he is now a loving husband. From your unfriendly neighborhood A man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "destroying the 240-year-old legacy of both Democrats and Republicans in trying to tear apart the country rather than concede defeat"

    In the words of a great scientist, "What a dewy-eyed moon-calf you are." You are aware, I hope, that the Democrats have refused to concede a single presidential election they have lost since at least 1988? (And they had allegations about that one too, come to think.) And if you're talking about "240 years" (I have no idea where you got that; the US' first elections were in 1788 and the Republicans have only existed since 1856) You should really look up, say, the election of 1824. Or 1876. You should look up the name "Tammany Hall". I could go on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you smoking? In what way did Clinton not concede in 2016, or Kerry in 2004?

      Delete
    2. Nachum that is a flat out lie. No losing candidate has refused to concede the election in the 20th Century, or probably ever. Dukakis, Gore, and H. Clinton all conceded publicly, on video, as did their Republican counterparts Bush, Dole, McCain and Romney,

      Delete
    3. Here is Al Gore conceding defeat in 2000: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-gores-concession-speech/

      And here is John Kerry conceding defeat in 2004: https://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/prez.main/index.html

      And here is Hillary Clinton conceding defeat in 2016: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-privately-concedes-in-phone-call-to-donald-trump/

      Now, I'm sure you can find cases of individual supporters of these candidates refusing to concede or acknowledge defeat. But you didn't say "Democrats" - you said "the Democrats".

      There is a massive gulf between a random loon on the internet and a candidate for president. Or at least there used to be.

      Delete
    4. I think Samuel Tilden did not concede the 1876 election, which he actually did win but had stolen from him. Other than that, every loser has conceded. And even Tilden chose not to fight to the bitter end as he didn't want to start another civil war.

      Delete
    5. "Conceding an election" has a specific meaning. It means acknowledging another's win graciously. None of these democrats did that. Gore begrudgingly recognized he was out of options after he lost at the Supreme Court, and Clinton and Kerry still blame their losses not on being bad candidates with bad messages, but on Swift Boats and Russians. They never conceded anything, exactly as Nachum said.

      I know democrats think the answer to everything is just redefining words, but it doesn't work that way in real life.

      Delete
    6. Hitlary Clinton told Biden not to concede, no matter what. Trump should not concede because the Dems fraud this election with the help of China. Hunter Biden gets a lot of money from China, as does Joe, and China helped them win this election. But unleashing the plague, causing mass mail-in ballots, which would not be counted otherwise, overturned the election results. China, not Russia, influenced the election.

      Delete
    7. Conceding an election means acknowledging another's win -full stop.

      Turk Hill bookends his comment with an oh so clever reinterpretation of Clinton's name (CDS???) and the absolutely false, absurd claim that mail in ballots weren't counted until this election cycle. Trump could have turned the "china virus" into his greatest achievement by saving hundreds of thousands of Americans by encouraging wearing masks, coordinated nationwide shutdowns, and cancelling debts/paying living wages to all of us for a few months while we ride this out. If he'd done that he probably would have gotten the landslide you incorrectly predicted. Instead, he ignored it and completely screwed up. What a chevra. You deserve each other.

      Delete
    8. @DF

      Your comment is internally contradictory.

      You are correct that concession is about acknowledging another candidate's win graciously. Clinton, Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis all did that -- you can go watch the concession speeches on YouTube.

      Concession is not about identifying the correct root cause of an election loss (which is in the eye of the beholder in any case).

      Just because you don't agree with how Clinton and Kerry explained their losses doesn't mean they didn't concede. They clearly did -- most people reading probably watched their concession speeches live, and are scratching their heads at your comment.

      Delete
    9. DF, you are great at making stuff up. What everyone means by "conceding the election" is the the loser publicly admits that the other guy/gal won and is the legitimate next President. Usually also involves a call to that effect to the opponent. Gore made important concession speech confirming to his supporters the legitimacy and finality of the 5-4 Bush vs. Gore SCOTUS decision and also very importantly disowned any attempt to encourage faithless electors to sway the election. Finally, Bush 43 was given the presidential daily intelligence briefing even before Bush vs. Gore was decided.

      Delete
    10. Concession means recognizing the other guy won - not that you *didn't* win. That's nothing more than a meaningless recognition of reality, and why would RNS even mention it? By that definition, 100% of everyone sitting in prison has conceded the judgment.

      Anyway, even the partisans here are forced to acknowledge their own guy didn't "concede" until after the Supreme Court decided it, so this particular angle is premature. Wait.

      Delete
    11. @Mv, Trump saved millions of lives when he shut or banned travel from China. He never let an American go without a ventilator, and it was the Republican party who supported the stimulus checks while the Dems opposed it. He would have had the landslide were it not for fraud.

      Delete
    12. David Ohsie said that conceding means admitting "that the other guy/gal won and is the legitimate next President."
      Not sure if you realize but Hillary called Trump an illegitimate president about a year ago.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

      Delete
    13. The others have answered in my defense very well, but I have to note that truly it has been said that the modern Left depends on a Lack of Remembering (and Noticing), and boy is that on display here.

      Democrats, being the party that engages in election fraud the most (and then attempts to gaslight us by insisting the phenomenon does not exist)- if you don't believe me, just look to the group that, hypocritically, is most resistant to any improvement in the system- don't often claim outright fraud (although they sometimes do). Rather, they posit much more insidious, and outlandish, conspiracy theories. I imagine the respondents here are either too young or too partisan to remember Gary Sick's "October Surprise" theory of 1988, which aimed to "cancel" the 1980 election and influence the 1988 one. It literally depended on the ravings of actual psychotics, and yet was very repectfully received by the media and Democratic Party. (I can go back even earlier: One may well argue that Watergate was an attempt to cancel Nixon's blowout victory in 1972.)

      Al Gore conceded the night of the election in 2000. Then he retracted, and he did not concede until well into December, and then when the Supreme Court ruled against him. I still remember the "Sore Loserman" bumper stickers. He, and every Democrat, without a shred of evidence, to this day insists that Bush "stole" the election.

      In 2004 Democrats spoke darkly of Diebold and voting machines in Ohio and impeaching that state's Secretary of State. And they- get this- *still do*.

      And here's the kicker: Democrats spent *three years* actively pursuing actual prosecutions over the supposed "stealing" of the 2016 election. They actually *impeached* the president over it! And then it turned out to be- brace yourself- *absolutely nothing*. It was *such* a nothingburger that even though, at the time, Democrats couldn't stop crowing about how Trump was impeached and that would always follow him, a few months later at their convention it was *not mentioned once*.

      And the Democrats on this thread have the chutzpah to say that Democrats always concede. Trump has the lonely job of pointing out some *flaming* "irregularities" in this election. People like Hillary and Kerry and Gore don't have to (although, amazingly, they still do) because they have all the Great and Good doing their dirty work for them. Like here.

      Oh, and I just want to point out, for those who don't know American history, that Charlie Hall seems bitter over the fact that Democrats were not permitted to steal the 1876 election by disenfranchising blacks. Stripped of all else, that's what he stands for, apparently.

      Delete
    14. To be sure, the president shut down travel from China immediately. But Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer called it hysterical xenophobia. The Nutty Professor Bernie Sanders said he would keep open borders even during the pandemic. Lastly, the president made sure no American was denied a ventilator. And they are on the verge of a vaccine, too. Vaccines are kosher, btw.

      Delete
    15. How many times will you repeat that canard, Turk Hill?
      The president did not shut down travel from China. Unless we redefine the word 'shut down'.
      And it was hysterical xenophobia, because it had no chance of working. As it didn't. Because all it could do was slow the arrival of the virus, not prevent it. And that could buy time to do stuff, but Trump refused to do anything. Except promise a miracle and WalMart parking lot testing sites.
      Jason from Jersey

      Delete
    16. @Mr. Mister: I don't agree with Clinton's claim that Trump was illegitimate and I agree with you on that. So I guess that you will agree with that Trump's action really, really bad, given that he is making them while still President and obstructing the Biden transition while Hillary didn't do any of those things.

      Delete
    17. On the contrary, Trump saved millions and millions of lives when he shut down travel from china. Even Dr. Fauci admitted that.

      Delete
    18. Where did Dr. Fauci say that shutting down travel from China saved millions and millions of lives?

      Delete
    19. @David Ohsie Here is Dr. Fauci agreeing with Trump about the China ban. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-j2c99iz60&ab_channel=PBSNewsHour

      Delete
    20. And you repeated it again, even though it is not true. He did not shut down travel from China, he never did.
      But without lies, there is no opinion. So you rely on lies.
      Jason from Jersey

      Delete
    21. @Turk Hill: I don't see anything there about saving millions of lives.

      Delete
    22. Did you even see the link? Dr. Fauci agreed that Trump's travel ban to China saved millions of lives. Mike Pence even agreed.

      Delete
  6. Your commnts as an Israeli Jew surprised me. Blessedly HaShem forgives us and promises that He will not look back at our evils from which we have repented. Pity so many Jews can not image that Divine trait. From your hate position against Trump it is obvious that Jews who dislike him have no interest in the well being and future of Israel. They are blinded to all Trump's historic giant leaps in advancing the Divine Agenda for Israel amongst the nations. Even to the extent that hundreds of Rabbis have signed a statement acknowledging Trump as a Messiah on the level of King Cyrus at the Return of Jews from Babylonian captivity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow is that true? If so, it doesn't reflect well on such "rabbis". Don't forget how many followed Shabbetai Tzvi to the bitter end!

      Delete
    2. "hundreds of Rabbis have signed a statement acknowledging Trump as a Messiah on the level of King Cyrus"

      I can agree with that!

      Delete
    3. Right, because the well being and future of Israel depends on basar v'dam. I lift my eyes unto Washington, from Trump will come my salvation!

      This menuval doesn't pas as a ben noach and people are calling him a messiah. There's a term for this - it starts with avoda and ends with zara.

      "A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers. Not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me; you have no choice...
      Some of you I don’t like at all, actually. And you’re going to be my biggest supporters because you’ll be out of business in about 15 minutes, if they get it. So I don’t have to spend a lot of time on that." -melech hamoshiach, Dec 2019

      Delete
    4. Not even close to Cyrus.

      Delete
    5. MV - your sarcastic comment re. Trump, that now "from Trump will come your salvation." Are you suggesting that for the Jews returning from Babylon thru the interceding of Cyrus, that "the Jews' salvation came from Cyrus"?

      Delete
    6. Through Cyrus, but from Hashem. If not Cyrus then it would've been through someone else. the decree was 70 years with or without Cyrus.
      Either way, equating the end of an exile with a symbolic moving of an embassy is totally warped.

      Delete
    7. @Mv, Whether one agrees with the president or not, you will admit that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel was a good and that the Dems do not support Israel but are Arabs clothed in sheep's clothing, anti-semites. The Republican party will always support the existence of the free State of Israel.

      @OvadYah, I agree. Without Cyrus there are no Jews and there is no Judaism. We should be celebrating his actions more than we do. He is the gentile Esther and is a real character, too. The fact that there is no Purim for Cyrus is almost a disgrace.

      Delete
    8. It's possible the embassy move is to his credit, but time will tell what his association will do to Israel's reputation. One unequivocal credit is the improved relations with some of our Arab neighbors.

      Delete
    9. ACJA - In a response to my post some have argued Isaiah 43, 45 is not referring to Cyrus and there are no failed prophecies in Tenach. I disagree and claim there are a almost certainly failed prophecies in Tenach. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html

      Delete
    10. ‘Anyway, even the partisans here are forced to acknowledge their own guy didn't "concede" until after the Supreme Court decided it, so this particular angle is premature. Wait‘. Wrong again. Bush was given access to the presidential security briefing before Gore conceded. Also Gore didn’t concede until then because until that time the election was truly in doubt and the counting was only stopped because of a controversial 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Also I voted for Bush. And Dole and McCain and Romney.

      Delete
    11. Sure you did, David. And I voted for Obama and Kerry. Why was the S.Ct decision "controversial", by the way - because it didn't go your guy's way? So if the Court orders new elections in a few states, would that also be "controversial"? What about the decision just a few months ago to allow PA to extend voting by 3 days - was that also "controversial"? That was even less than 5-4, it was 4-4. And I'm sure you know many, many cases have been decided 5-4. So please, if you don't mind, explain why that case was so "controversial" as opposed to any other.

      Delete
    12. I love the irony of an anonymous commenter accusing someone who comments under their real name of creating a fictitious personal political history just to score points in a bonkers comment thread. I was happy with the result of Bush vs. Gore, but while it was 7-2 that the Florida count was not be conducted properly, the remedey of stopping the count rather than simply conducting it properly relied on some rather convoluted reasoning about the intent of the FL legislature and was a complete party line vote. But that is neither here not there. FL was within hundreds of votes, the changes in the recounts could have changes the results, and that would have decided the election so there was real doubt as to who would be President. Even then, Bush was given access to the Presidential Daily Briefing before it was the election was decided.

      Extending the PA vote deadline was controversial and I have little doubt that if the election actually hinged on that on that factor, then SCOTUS would be involved in the resolution. Since, Biden's victory in PA is far beyond what those votes could effect and Biden wins even without PA, you are raising a silly irrelevancy, as usual.

      Delete
    13. I think what you meant to say, David Ohsie - if that is indeed your real name, and if so, who cares - is "you're right, it wasn't controversial in any sense, and I was guilty of overstatement." There, wasn't that simple?

      re this "presidential daily briefing" you keep saying -Clinton was leaving office. If Trump prevails, he's not leaving. So what are you comparing apples to oranges.

      Delete
    14. Yes, it's my real name and I explained the absurdity of an anonymous commenter accusing a person of falsifying their political opinions. I also explained specifically why it was a controversial decision. RIF.

      Yes Clinton was leaving office. Both of his potential successors Gore and Bush were briefed. The point was that the briefing happened because Bush could have been the winner.



      Delete
    15. If you voted for Bush why didn't you vote Trump?

      Delete
    16. #1 reason is that he is not competent or knowledgable and instead simply lies like crazy always for no particularly good reason or makes generic shallow statements that mean nothing. I was afraid that in a crisis he would fail utterly, even if I agreed with all his policies. His continued non-handling of COVID proved that right (in contrast, my MD republican who I did vote for has done a fairly good job). #2 Was that he did not appear to be a real conservative especially in his opposition to free trade and in some degree to his immigration opposition. In fact, some of my concern was misplaced there as he mostly pursued standard conservative policies and I credit him for the tax cut, deregulation and court nominees (most of them). #3 Opposition to sex abuse is important to me and he is an admitted and confirmed abuser many times over. As a result, I didn't vote the presidential line in 2016 or 2022 as I'm not a D either and the L candidates are not competent to the presidency either.

      Delete
    17. "If you voted for Bush why didn't you vote Trump?" To put it another way, why do Bush and Romney not support Trump? I don't for the same reasons I voted for them.

      Delete
    18. @David Ohsie, 1. Romney is a sell-out to the Left when he voted to impeach Trump. 2. I disagree. As the youtube link shows, even Dr. Fauci agreed that Trump saved millions of American lives when he banned travel from China. Actually, I think he handled the coronavirus very well. He is ready to come out with a vaccine momentarily. I trust Pence and Trump with the pandemic. I don't trust Biden (who has dementia) and Kamala. If we have a "dark winter" it will be because Biden screwed it up with lockdowns. And besides, everyone says that everything is Trump's fault. The fall of the Roman Empire is Trump's fault. C'mon man. This is a world pandemic. All countries suffered equally.

      3. I agree with you on some of his policies. Not all of his policies are conservative, but I agree with others. For example, one college professor read a list of presidential accomplishments which sounded very liberal. When the students heard this they agreed. However, when they learned it was a Trump policy, they rejected it. 

      4. I don't believe in sex abuse without evidence. There's no more evidence for this than Russian collusion. Have you ever seen Joe Biden? Biden enjoys the sniffing of girl's hair. For this reason, Phony Kamala accused Biden of sexual misconduct twice and insisted that we believe the women. However, whenever Biden chose her for his VP, she conveniently dropped the charges.

      At the end of the day, even if we dislike Trump personally, we should vote for him because he was the last stand for free speech and American values.

      Delete
  7. Entertainment politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You've had at least 14 years to reach a more rational assessment. "Hacking Democracy" was a 2006 HBO documentary. Here's a segment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75xvZ3osFg

    ReplyDelete
  9. Um, here is a video of Hillary Clinton's concession speech from 2016:

    Hillary Clinton FULL Concession Speech | Election 2016

    And John Kerry's concession speech from 2004:

    2004 John Kerry Concession Speech

    And Al Gore's concession speech from 2000:

    Al Gore concedes presidential election of 2000

    ReplyDelete
  10. (pedant alert: ignoring the fact that the "Republican party" is only 160 years old; the issue applies to the Federalist and Whig parties as well as the Democratic-Republican Party. End pedantry)

    While it is true that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a rather extreme movement, Trump himself is no Nice Guy, and has indeed seemed to allow for white supremacists and other odious sorts to feel welcome. And let's not forget the manifestations of Obama Derangement Syndrome, and Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and so on, going back as long at least as *I* have been alive.

    Anyone remember how Nixon was hated, long before Watergate?

    And how FDR referred to the 4 conservative SC Justices as the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse?

    And how Woodrow Wilson faced such partisan politics that his own idea - the League of Nations - was never joined by the US.

    And how Andrew Jackson (probably the closest Trump predecessor in terms of personality type) actually had duels on the floor of Congress!

    Have you ever seen a political cartoon from the 1800's?? They are quaint and cute appearing but holy moly are they biting in their critiques of the other side.

    And the little inter-party conflict we refer to as the Civil War?

    So I suppose it is nice and reassuring that we are UPHOLDING our centuries-old tradition of bitterly fighting those who disagree with us and reviling the supporters of the guy who stands for Everything We Don't Like.

    OK OK, so Nachum already made this point. But I think it bears repeating if only to help put things into perspective. We indeed seem to be more crazed than before. But still, we put down our pitchforks and sit down with the other side and try to hash out some laws. Ideally, between compromising and switching perspectives now and again, we get some laws and regulations that are actually sort of useful and appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "There was absolutely no willingness to be open to the possibility that there could be good people who sincerely believe that Trump and the associated Republican party is overall beneficial for the US..." You don't have to have evil intent to be a rodef.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was the extremism that brought us Yigal Amir.

      Delete
  12. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a thing for both his detractors (who refuse to credit him with anything) as well as his supporters (who feel he can do no wrong and will defend him regardless of ANYTHING he says and does). I despise the man but have no problem giving credit where credit is due. As an example, we have no idea how the Middle East peace agreements with Israel will turn out, but it is not intellectually honest to deny that this is a positive for Trump's legacy even if much of the groundwork has been in the works for a long time. But I can't even discuss this with TDS sufferers on the left just as I can't mention the (many) issues I have with him with TDS sufferers on the right. We have lost the ability to disagree without demonizing (although many of the extreme left and extreme right sometimes deserve demonizing!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you are mixing two separate issues. In regard to how you should deal with friends who have different opinions then you of course you sholud try to not let politics or other issues like that get in the way. However when it actually comes to politics, I dont understand why "someone else's perspective" matters or that they are "nice people" matters if you believe they are wrong. George Bush was a great guy by all accounts. He also started the Iraq war which at this point in history everyone agrees was a disaster responsible for tens of thousands american soldiers dead. Pretty sure Obama is a nice guy but if you are on the right wing of Israeli politics you believe the Iran deal put you in mortal danger. It goes both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He also started the Iraq war which at this point in history everyone agrees was a disaster responsible for tens of thousands american soldiers dead."
      Not a single person agrees to that. Only 4400 or so American soldiers were killed in Iraq, nobody agrees that it was tens of thousands.

      Delete
    2. You're right my mistake. Still think my overall point stands.

      Delete
  14. RNS, as a proud Biden voter, i must relay that for myself and most people i know who voted for him, we don't view him as the best person for the job, let alone the best person period. He is simply not the worst - and in 2020 that is good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why do you have to be so ignorant.

    Al Gore (2000) DEMOCRAT - didn't concede until December 13.

    In the USA, there is the RIGHT for lawful challenges when there is what to challenge.

    Stop saying stupid and ignorant things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is that in 2000, there were issues with a couple hundred votes in a couple of counties in one state, which the entire national election hinged on, and all parties involved were in agreement on what the physical problem was (they disagreed on the resolution).

      In 2020, only one side alleges that there are issues, and claims that they apply (in various combinations) to hundreds of thousands of votes over several states, and has provided no evidence to support their allegations.

      Delete
  16. You believe the media about Trump. Do you believe the same media about Israel politics? It's hard to believe how blind you are, but it's all the fault of the media sources you choose.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You literally have no idea what is going on the US. You probably get your news from the anti-Trump media. The same media that slants all news coverage to be anti-Israel.

    Think about this:
    The same media in the US that is very, very pro-Israel, is the same media that is pro-Trump.
    The same media in the US that is anti-Israel is the same media that is anti-Trump.
    Why do you accept as fact news reports from the anti-Trump media when you cringe watching the same media report on Israel.
    The "better-than-though" attitude of anti-Trumpers who, despite his great actions as president, can't stand Trump's personality, is the same "better-than-though" attitude of those who, despite Israel's right to defend herself, will find moral equivalency with terrorists.

    No, I did not equate anti-Trumpers with terrorists. I am equating the "better-than-though" attitude of anti-Trumpers with the "better-than-though" attitude of anti-Israel pundits. And wonder of wonders! They are the same media!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oliver - exactly. I wish other "enlightened" folk who I'm sure have the best of intentions realized that. Common sense. But as is evident common sense is anything but common.

      Delete
  18. Thank you Turk Hill for helping to me to understand something important: why Trump made the whole election about hunter biden.

    The implicit narrative there is that Biden is "on the take" from China. And it sets up uneducated people to "connect the dots" and conclude with the conspiracy theory that China hatched the virus to topple Trump, or even that Biden cooperated with this. The narrative that Trump "banned travel from China" --really his only early action, and the only one he or his supporters ever mention, has a similar effect. Because at root he is implicitly claiming that the Democrats wanted more infected people to come in.... to sink his candidacy. It's a twisted paranoid fantasy but it's also a brilliant piece of propaganda because it leaves the most important neural connections for the people to do themselves, like connect the dots. The result is that Democrats are seen as what Republicans really are: trying to overthrow the election and irredeemably compromised by foreign manipulation.

    By the way, here is something that no one ever seems to say about the whole voter fraud claim. If Trump and his cronies knew the election was going to be unfair or hacked or anything of this sort then why didn't they pass election security laws BEFORE the election, instead of complaining when they are losing and do lose? They have been in power for 4 years and this never came up. Indeed Trump totally dropped the ball on election security following the 2016 election. How can one person be both the president of the United States and an oppressed child who can only complain about how everyone is illegally aligned against him? Mercifully the USA is still for the time being governed (and adjudged) according to the rule of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Yonah for your comment. The theory is that China intentionally slipped the virus into Wuhan and eventually into the United States. Since China owns Biden (his son, Hunter gets money from them), they prefer him over Trump and the impact of the virus would force the majority of citizens to use mail-in ballots, which they did. However, it is also possible that China was not involved with the Democrats. They screwed up once it got out and they just figured let it infect the world and see what happens. Typical atheist behavior. In any case, China got exactly what they wanted: Joe Biden.

      As for your second point, Trump called Sean Hannity and complained about mail-in ballots numerous times. He even took the case to court but they denied it. Three days before the election, Pennsylvania decided to conveniently count ballots till Friday. The Supreme Court approved this, rejecting Trump's plea in the battleground states. Trump has said that this extension was a violation of federal law, which required all mail-in ballots to be counted on Election Day. 
      If the theory above is correct, then China, not Russia, interfered with the election. Even if China did not collude with the Bidens, China still influenced the election by unleashing a deadly virus, which caused mass mail-in ballots in the first place. Remember that these ballots are not legit since most mail-in voters don't know anything about politics and only voted for Biden because CNN told them to. A fair election in 2024 happens without these people, who would never vote otherwise.

      As it turns out, a fair election would have kept Trump in the White House in 2020.

      Delete
    2. Who said mail-in ballots are required to be counted on Election Day? Even in states where ballots must be received by Election Day, it has generally not been a requirement that votes be counted by then. Such a law would disenfranchise US military members serving overseas.

      Requiring mail-in ballots to be counted on Election Day would be impossible in PA, where the Republican-controlled legislature ruled that no processing of mail-in ballots would be allowed until after polls closed on Election Day. Most states have laws delaying counting of absentee ballots until after polls close so as not to affect in-person voting. In some states, mail-in ballots are opened, checked, and processed, delaying only the tallying until after polls close. Other states allow mail-in ballots to be opened and checked but not processed. PA did not allow mail-ins to be touched until after polls close. That's why the count took so long to finalize. Requiring mail-ins to be counted on Election Day would have disenfranchised nearly everyone who voted by mail.

      Ballots are not invalid even if the voters who cast them are ill-informed.

      As it turns out, we had a fair election, as Chris Krebs stated before Trump fired him. And Joe Biden won it.

      Secure election

      Delete
    3. I disagree. My vote was disenfranchised. Every Republican who voted in-person's vote was disenfranchised. Many of these mail-in ballots were plainly fraud. Many dead people voted for Biden. Please explain this to me. How can dead people vote? These lazy Democrats do not even want to get out of bed and vote. There needs to be a law where your vote only counts when you go to the polls. The military can vote over-seas ahead of time.

      I agree with Trump that this was a violation of federal law. PA does not require three days after "Election Day" to count the votes. That's ridiculous. They never needed to do this before. Why do they only need to do this now? Decorates are notorious for election fraud and counting votes way past the overdue deadline. Recall the Democratic primary elections. It was embarrassing. We didn't know for weeks who won. This never happened before. And when Democrats refused to let Republican poll watchers help count the vote, these people were violating federal law, a crime.

      No, Trump would have won had China not influenced our election by inviting a deadly virus, resulting in mass mail-in ballots.

      Delete
  19. Rabbi Slifkin, being British isn't what causes your inability to understand what's happening in America; its your unfamiliarity with the facts. If all I had to understand Israeli society was Haaretz, or even a more responsible source like Times of Israel, I'd have a very warped perspective of Israel, wouldn't I?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Trying to figure out where to put this in:
    The FBI spied on candidate Trump in the 2016 campaign. That is undisputed but minimized. And to date, not only no punishment, the highly placed agents responsible are considered heroes by the Democrats (and many Republican opponents of the outgoing president).
    Besides the Steele dossier engineered in Britain, financed by the Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither of those things are true.

      Delete
    2. Obama did spy on the Trump campaign in 2016. That much is true.

      Delete
  21. I think it's interesting that the topic of this article is extremism on both sides of the political divide. People on one side of the argument maintain that Biden molests children, Trump only lost the election due to widespread voter fraud, and Trump is the Messiah. Those who argue that Trump only lost due to widespread voter fraud also claim that Trump's dozens of lawsuits, in several states, over approximately 80,000 votes, are equivalent to 2000 election, where results hinged on several hundred votes in one state. Also, losing Democratic presidential candidates haven't conceded an election in decades.

    People who disagree with the above assertions are, apparently, extremist Biden supporters. It seems to me that the goal posts defining "extremism" have shifted quite a bit. I guess that makes me an extreme Biden supporter.

    An observor

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Too Outrageous To Be True?

Here are advertisements for two events. One is outrageous and is merely a satire of the other, which is outrageous and is actually taking pl...