Why do people keep saying that Trump shows the "yad hashem"?

amother

Plum

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 6:27 am

I get it, they believe Clinton would mean the end of the world and so Trump is at least better than that. But still, Trump is the yad hashem? Even 60% of his supporters, including myself, believe he is unqualified. We only voted for him as the better of 2 evils. Does anyone actually believe he is a competent and qualified choice? Impossible. If hashem would have put a competent Republican in office over Clinton, I can hear yad hashem. But are you Trump supporters truly happy with him? I can't believe you are.

Simple1

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 6:51 am

I didn't vote for him. But it does seem like Yad Hashem in that this whole thing was supernatural, very unlikely. Starting from the primaries all the way through his shocking win. Sort of freaky.

Last edited by Simple1 on Thu, Nov 10 2016, 6:53 am; edited 1 time in total

groisamomma

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 6:53 am

I'm guessing because b'derech ha'teva he should not have won, or at least according to the pollsters and political pundits that convinced the world that Hillary would win. It's as if people are saying this couldn't have happened on its own so it must be that Hashem Himself orchestrated it. I've heard it said by Democrats too.

Rubber Ducky

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 7:07 am

Nearly all the polls showed President-Elect Trump losing. He has zero political experience. His campaign was run using far fewer consultants, pollsters, and money than what has become the norm for our times. Yes, Mr. Trump's amazing win showed the Yad Hashem. But if Secretary Clinton won, that would also have been the Yad Hashem.

I have an "charismatic Christian" acquaintance who has been sending me links since last week to what she considers Biblical prophecy in Trump's election. The evangelicals are very pro-Trump, and this time they came out and voted. Really weird, because Trump isn't exactly frum. But Mrs. Clinton seems anti-religious, so maybe not so weird after all.

tryinghard

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 8:00 am

Yad Hashem doesn't mean, "this is gonna be amazing". It means the "Hand" of Hashem, intervening in the world in a more obvious way than usual. L'havdil Elef Alfei Havdalos, Yad Hashem led Haman to power - it should not have happened. Does saying it was Yad Hashem mean you are saying that was a good thing? No! It means you are acknowledging that under the natural course of events, it should, could and would not have happened.

This is seen as Yad Hashem because there is no way b'derech HaTeva that this should have happened. There were 16 other candidates in the Republican field, and nearly all of them were more qualified than DJT, and many would certainly would have been more acceptable to much of the HRC voters who are now so miserable.

When Trump announced last ear that he was running, most people thought it was a joke. There was just no way he would win the nomination, let alone become President. He has repeatedly bounced back from things that would have taken out any other political figure. Clearly, Someone wanted him to win. Do we know why? Not necessarily. but the Divine Intervention is pretty obvious.

Last edited by tryinghard on Thu, Nov 10 2016, 9:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Laiya

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 8:06 am

Rubber Ducky wrote:

I mentioned this in another thread.

The Investors Business Daily Poll has been almost dead on accurate in predicting the prior 3 presidential elections. It is non-partisan, (unlike mainstream media polls like nbc, cnn etc).

For the past month+, it had Trump ahead nationally by 2 points.

Just this past Sunday, I read an article on msnbc claiming that Clinton was ahead by 4 points. Buried in the polling methodology it stated that 32,000 democrats were polled but only 30,000 republicans--aprx. 7% more democrats than republicans! So after over-sampling democrats by aprx. 7% for the poll, it came out that Clinton was ahead by 4 points. How is that accurate?

Math is not my strong point so if there's something wrong with my take on this I am very interested to hear an explanation.

Rubber Ducky

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 9:17 am

Laiya wrote:

I ...The Investors Business Daily Poll has been almost dead on accurate in predicting the prior 3 presidential elections. It is non-partisan, (unlike mainstream media polls like nbc, cnn etc).

For the past month+, it had Trump ahead nationally by 2 points.

Just this past Sunday, I read an article on msnbc claiming that Clinton was ahead by 4 points. Buried in the polling methodology it stated that 32,000 democrats were polled but only 30,000 republicans--aprx. 7% more democrats than republicans! So after over-sampling democrats by aprx. 7% for the poll, it came out that Clinton was ahead by 4 points. How is that accurate? [/b]

Math is not my strong point so if there's something wrong with my take on this I am very interested to hear an explanation.

There are a lot more registered Democrats than Republicans so I would expect more Democrats to be sampled. You're right that the IBD poll showed Mr. Trump ahead. But a big factor in the results is that many Democrats simply didn't show up to vote.

PinkFridge

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 11:36 am

tryinghard wrote:

'
This.
That the 2 candidates were both so singularly unpopular demonstrated to me that Someone was pulling strings.