Home

Democrats: What was/is your red line?
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 7:55 pm
Laiya wrote:
Imo, any real Republican national contender will always be destroyed by the media such that he will no longer be seen as decent by the time he wins.

They did this to Bush #2 (who remembers the hitler y"sh comparisons?), etc


Ellen Degeneres is being excoriated by the liberals for daring to sit at a sporting event next to Pres. George Bush! And these are the very same people bemoaning how very “divisive” Trump is! Hypocrisy par excellence.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 8:00 pm
wiki wrote:
I don't vote for Democrats who sell short Israel's interests. That said, I am a supporter of a two-state solution, so criticizing Netanyahu is not "anti-Israel" in my book. (But some things do go beyond that line and I do take this line seriously. That's why Mitt Romney got my vote and not Barack Obama in 2012.)

If it had been Romney or Rubio or someone like that up against Hillary in 2016, I probably would have gone with the Republican.

And that's even considering that I am on the side of Democrats with regard to health care reform, gun control, deficit reduction (seriously. Look at every president since I was a teen in the Clinton eras. Democrats have done markedly better on that score despite the tired talking points), foreign policy out of Israel, climate change as an actual issue, and tax reform (I believe that our current tax cut was pure immorality, giving the wealthiest the lowest taxes in modern times while ballooning the deficit). While I don't support open borders, I am more in line with moderate Democrats' views on immigration--that we need a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented and we need to encourage numbers of legal immigrants.

But Israel is a big and major issue. Even though I would agree with Warren on more issues, if she comes up against Pence, I probably vote for Pence.

But I would never vote for Trump unless he gets a brain transplant and a soul transplant. His narcissism is pathological and I don't think there is anything that would stop him from abusing the power of his office for his personal benefit. Nothing he has done has surprised me.


I’m curious, since you still advocate for a 2-state solution. Gaza was to be the test for whether the palis would truly begin to act peaceful if they were given land. Instead they turned it into a base to shoot rockets at Israel. What could possibly make you believe that if they were given even more land for their state, they wouldn’t use all of it to try to destroy Israel? Do you not believe the Torah where it states Yishmael is a wild beast with their hands in everything? They are life long enemies of Israel whom they have endless jealousy of, and will never, ever be peaceful towards Israel. Their only goal in wanting yet another state (on top of the other 22 Arab states) is in order to take all of the land from Israel and making Israel disappear, which thankfully we know G-d will never allow.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 8:08 pm
[quote="wiki"]A few people have mentioned the Democratic Congresswomen Tlaib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez. Unless they are running for president, or you live in their district, they aren't who you're voting for.

Trust me, I would support their primary challengers and I hope they leave the House soon! But most of the party does not agree with them on their radical positions.

/quote]

Really? Please show us where any of the dem leaders have called them out by name?
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 9:47 pm
The next day after Ilhan Omar's "All about the Benjamins baby" tweet, Nancy Pelosi called on her directly insisting that she apologize. You don't remember that?

I know that the later statement by Congress was watered down, but most of Congress, Republican and Democrat, tweeted or stated that they were opposed to her statement within a day of it being made.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 9:54 pm
Cheiny wrote:
I’m curious, since you still advocate for a 2-state solution. Gaza was to be the test for whether the palis would truly begin to act peaceful if they were given land. Instead they turned it into a base to shoot rockets at Israel. What could possibly make you believe that if they were given even more land for their state, they wouldn’t use all of it to try to destroy Israel? Do you not believe the Torah where it states Yishmael is a wild beast with their hands in everything? They are life long enemies of Israel whom they have endless jealousy of, and will never, ever be peaceful towards Israel. Their only goal in wanting yet another state (on top of the other 22 Arab states) is in order to take all of the land from Israel and making Israel disappear, which thankfully we know G-d will never allow.


You are welcome to disagree with me. I have no claim to all the answers in Israel; I know that none of us have all the answers. And I know that my views are not popular in some Orthodox settings (although in others, there are plenty of people who quietly agree with me).

I think the Palestinians nowadays have not acted like they deserve our trust or sovereignty. Now is not the time to give them a state.

However, in the long term, I don't think it's right for Israel's lechatchila plan for the future to be holding onto a West Bank in which Jews who are born there are citizens and non-Jews who are born there are stateless non-citizens. It's simply not a fair way to run a place. If Israel's plan is to permanently keep all of the West Bank and not grant citizenship to Palestinians, Israel would not be a democracy. (I don't want to take the words of Israel's critics and invoke Apartheid, but this scenario in the long run is mot much far off from that. It's not a correct plan A.)

I don't want them as citizens of Israel, because it would make Israel not a Jewish state. Israel being a Jewish state is essential for the stability of the world.

And I'm against ethnic cleansing or forced migration of the Palestinians. Jews have been victim of that sort of treatment too many times. It would not be ethical to resort to such a strategy.

So, with all of the other options exhausted, I think the only way Israel can ever remain a democracy and a Jewish state is to carve out places where the Palestinians live and give them their own sovereignty over those places. Again, I don't think we're ready to do this today, but it's the only long-term solution that I think makes any sense. Short of an apocalypse--if it comes down to Hashem doing that, that's also all right by me...but I'd let Him do that and spare the politicians any helping role.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:20 pm
wiki wrote:
You are welcome to disagree with me. I have no claim to all the answers in Israel; I know that none of us have all the answers. And I know that my views are not popular in some Orthodox settings (although in others, there are plenty of people who quietly agree with me).

I think the Palestinians nowadays have not acted like they deserve our trust or sovereignty. Now is not the time to give them a state.

However, in the long term, I don't think it's right for Israel's lechatchila plan for the future to be holding onto a West Bank in which Jews who are born there are citizens and non-Jews who are born there are stateless non-citizens. It's simply not a fair way to run a place. If Israel's plan is to permanently keep all of the West Bank and not grant citizenship to Palestinians, Israel would not be a democracy. (I don't want to take the words of Israel's critics and invoke Apartheid, but this scenario in the long run is mot much far off from that. It's not a correct plan A.)

I don't want them as citizens of Israel, because it would make Israel not a Jewish state. Israel being a Jewish state is essential for the stability of the world.

And I'm against ethnic cleansing or forced migration of the Palestinians. Jews have been victim of that sort of treatment too many times. It would not be ethical to resort to such a strategy.

So, with all of the other options exhausted, I think the only way Israel can ever remain a democracy and a Jewish state is to carve out places where the Palestinians live and give them their own sovereignty over those places. Again, I don't think we're ready to do this today, but it's the only long-term solution that I think makes any sense. Short of an apocalypse--if it comes down to Hashem doing that, that's also all right by me...but I'd let Him do that and spare the politicians any helping role.


This is exactly how I feel. When I was younger, I was much more right-wing about this issue. I felt that Israel had to hold on to the land it had won in 1967 for security reasons and because Hashem gave us the land.

But ultimately, I think it poisons us as a people to treat another group of people as second-class citizens. I think we are better off giving up some land and keeping Israel democratic, fair, and just.

I agree also that the time is not now. But I wish it were because the longer the current situation goes on, the weaker it makes Israel.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:27 pm
leapyearbaby wrote:
... doesn’t affect your ability to live a moral lifestyle YET.

In the baker case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakers because of technicalities. If you read the decision (I come from a family of lawyers), they specifically side-stepped the issue of religion vs liberal rights and did not address it as a fundamental issue.
In the public schools, if you had a student who wanted support and understanding for being gay and you are a mental health counselor in the school , and your religious principles say I can’t provide that support, you could potentially loose your job for not doing what you were hired to do- despite your religious rights.

Now you might say Halacha doesn’t hold that way. I’m not going to go into Halacha-every person has to ask their Rav- but there are times where you’re moral rightsWILL impact others. That’s the nature of Halacha. You don’t live in a vacuum. What would happen if you are in a position where you’d have to counsel someone against Halacha?
That’s the scary part of the liberalism coming from some democrats- it’s not so easy to use your religious rights to protect you anymore...

Actually this issue has come up for Frum docs in Canada IIRC.


I honestly don't know what frum therapists do. If there are any frum therapists on the board I'd love to hear from you. Maybe this needs a spin-off in an anon-enabled forum.

But if a teen needs support and understanding for being gay and you don't feel you are halachically allowed to provide that support, how do you stay in that job? Do you tell the boy, well, sorry, I know you're going through a struggle but religiously I'm not allowed to help you? Do you tell him he's a bad person for having the struggle? I don't think it's your job to show the patient that you disapprove of them or their lifestyle. That's not your job as a therapist or as a frum Jew, IMO. Then again when you go into therapy this is something you know is going to come up. I would assume they get training for how to deal with these inevitable conflicts. This is something for a therapist to discuss with their supervisor or mentor long before it comes up in practice. If this is something you don't feel you can do, maybe you need a different line of work. It's like a frum nurse saying, I'm not comfortable examining male genitalia. Well, if you can't do it, maybe you need to choose a different field.
Back to top

JoyInTheMorning




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:34 pm
I can see from the answers here that I am quite a bit more liberal than any who have so far posted. But in many ways, I agree with many of my fellow anti-Trumpers. I vote for the candidate, not the party. I have voted for quite a few Republicans in my life.

Unlike Marina, I would never vote for Kasich because he is anti-choice. I am strongly pro-choice first, because I think that is the only position consistent with halacha (since halacha mandates abortion until crowning if the mother's life or health is at risk) second, because I had a terrible experience with a missed miscarriage (baby died, but I didn't pass the baby), an ob-gyn who refused to do a D&C because of her religious beliefs, and O wound up carrying a dead baby for months. I never fully recovered and wasn't ever able to get pregnant again after. I have spoken to several women who have had similar experiences, so I know that "pro-life" is often actually anti-life. So I think I am probably the most pro-choice poster here, and I would never, ever vote for an anti-choice candidate.

My red lines include BDS and not supporting Israel. But I would vote for Warren even though she has one person on her campaign staff who is rumored to be pro BDS. I realize that no staff is perfect. I voted for Bill Clinton, but if I had known what he done with Monica Lewinsky, not to mention the women he is accused of raping, I would not have voted for him. Raping a woman and s-xual harassment are big red lines for me. On the other hand, I don't consider what Corey Booker is accused of doing to be over that red line at all. (I love Corey Booker.)

And also, grossly unethical actions, including things like embezzlement. I have voted for people, like Eliot Spitzer, who later turned out to be totally unethical. There are plenty of Republicans in this category as well.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:44 pm
How do dem supporters here feel about what dem violent rioters are doing right now, outside the Trump rally in Minnesota? They’re attacking, throwing bottles and other objects at police and their horses, calling them pigs, burning #maga hats... Will Pelosi/Schumer, any dem leader come out and condemn this criminal behavior? Of course not! Maxine Waters called for it! And then they call Trump “divisive.” Shameful beyond belief. How anyone can support that party is just mind boggling.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:49 pm
wiki wrote:
A few people have mentioned the Democratic Congresswomen Tlaib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez. Unless they are running for president, or you live in their district, they aren't who you're voting for.

Trust me, I would support their primary challengers and I hope they leave the House soon! But most of the party does not agree with them on their radical positions.

By the same token, the Republican Party would require abandoning over the Steve King and the Rockland County GOP for their white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Both parties have loony radicals and anti-Semites on the fringes. Both have normal politicians in their rank and file. It's morally wrong to marry yourself blindly to either party.


There’s quite a difference between how the Republican Party dealt with Steve king and how dems are doing nothing about the anti semites in their party. Nothing. Nary a word against the,
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:53 pm
wiki wrote:
The next day after Ilhan Omar's "All about the Benjamins baby" tweet, Nancy Pelosi called on her directly insisting that she apologize. You don't remember that?

I know that the later statement by Congress was watered down, but most of Congress, Republican and Democrat, tweeted or stated that they were opposed to her statement within a day of it being made.


Sorry, but changing what was to be a resolution against anti Semitism, into a general statement against hate INCLUDING ANTI MUSLIM HATE (Nancy’s wink and nod to the muslim anti semites whose hateful comments were supposed to be the impetus for the resolution in the first place!) and worst of all, refusing to name them, was despicable and absolute complicity with the anti semitism.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 10:55 pm
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
This is exactly how I feel. When I was younger, I was much more right-wing about this issue. I felt that Israel had to hold on to the land it had won in 1967 for security reasons and because Hashem gave us the land.

But ultimately, I think it poisons us as a people to treat another group of people as second-class citizens. I think we are better off giving up some land and keeping Israel democratic, fair, and just.

I agree also that the time is not now. But I wish it were because the longer the current situation goes on, the weaker it makes Israel.


We already did “give up some land” thereby throwing many Jews out of their homes, only to have the filthy undeserving recipients of that precious land use it to attack Israel. Anyone who hasn’t learned from Gaza is living in lala land. Your attitude “when you were younger” was the right one,
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:00 pm
Cheiny, you're entitled to your opinions, but please entitle other people to theirs also.
Back to top

wiki




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Oct 10 2019, 11:03 pm
I don't think I'm living in lala land. I don't think the Palestinians are currently ready for sovereignty. I also think that the alternatives are being an eventual Apartheid state, or a non-Jewish state, or planning an ethnic cleansing of the Arabs. All of those alternatives are repugnant to me.

I therefore think that Israel should keep on working on the bridges it can build, and keep on building good will by retaining some coherent land masses for giving away some day, and wait it out patiently.

I don't think I will ever convince you. I came into this discussion with intellectual humility to know that I for sure don't have all the answers, but it's clear that no one has all the answers on this subject. I respect that many smart Jews have, in good faith, come to conclusions different from mine.

I hope that you can respect my difference of opinion. If you cannot, please stop trying to convince people of your opinion through attack. It's not becoming.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:16 am
Cheiny wrote:
https://www.jta.org/2019/02/07/politics/why-these-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-voted-no-on-an-anti-bds-bill

“https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/views-on-israel-of-u-s-presidential-candidates-2020-cory-booker”

Make sure to read all of it.



I’ll be pleased to read your posts and links after you show some nuance or complexity of thought. Or at least something interesting or different. As of right now, I don’t read your posts because they all say the same thing.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:19 am
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
I can see from the answers here that I am quite a bit more liberal than any who have so far posted. But in many ways, I agree with many of my fellow anti-Trumpers. I vote for the candidate, not the party. I have voted for quite a few Republicans in my life.

Unlike Marina, I would never vote for Kasich because he is anti-choice. I am strongly pro-choice first, because I think that is the only position consistent with halacha (since halacha mandates abortion until crowning if the mother's life or health is at risk) second, because I had a terrible experience with a missed miscarriage (baby died, but I didn't pass the baby), an ob-gyn who refused to do a D&C because of her religious beliefs, and O wound up carrying a dead baby for months. I never fully recovered and wasn't ever able to get pregnant again after. I have spoken to several women who have had similar experiences, so I know that "pro-life" is often actually anti-life. So I think I am probably the most pro-choice poster here, and I would never, ever vote for an anti-choice candidate.

My red lines include BDS and not supporting Israel. But I would vote for Warren even though she has one person on her campaign staff who is rumored to be pro BDS. I realize that no staff is perfect. I voted for Bill Clinton, but if I had known what he done with Monica Lewinsky, not to mention the women he is accused of raping, I would not have voted for him. Raping a woman and s-xual harassment are big red lines for me. On the other hand, I don't consider what Corey Booker is accused of doing to be over that red line at all. (I love Corey Booker.)

And also, grossly unethical actions, including things like embezzlement. I have voted for people, like Eliot Spitzer, who later turned out to be totally unethical. There are plenty of Republicans in this category as well.


I appreciate your post and experiences. Thanks for writing about this.
Back to top

itsmeima




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:25 am
Cheiny wrote:
Ellen Degeneres is being excoriated by the liberals for daring to sit at a sporting event next to Pres. George Bush! And these are the very same people bemoaning how very “divisive” Trump is! Hypocrisy par excellence.


Bam, this is the first time I (and Ellen, both Democrats) agree with you!

"When I say 'be kind to one another,' I don't mean only the people who think the same way you do. I mean be kind to everyone, it doesn't matter,"
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:29 am
Fox wrote:
None of these cases involve denying LGBT people routine service; they involve the right of decline specific commissioned work, which has always received greater protection.

In other words, a gay couple could walk into Masterpiece Cakes and purchase a ready-made cake for use at their wedding, and the owner would be happy to sell it to them. However, the owner declines to take specific commissions because of his religious beliefs, just as a number of designers declined to make dresses for Melania Trump because of their political beliefs. Melania is welcome to purchase a Marc Jacobs dress from the store of her choice, but he's not going to design a dress for her.

You mentioned health care and the ability to refer an LGBT patient to another care provider. But what if that weren't permitted? That has been the case for a number of students providing services as part of their clinical hours, resulting in dismissal from their university programs. Psychotherapy Notes

And is it in the best interests of patients to work with mental health providers who cannot legitimately affirm them?

I don't think anyone genuinely wants to deprive anyone of services because of their identity, orientation, or whatever. But currently, the agenda of transgender activists, in particular, has gone far beyond civil rights and has veered into mandated affirmation.


Masterpiece Cake shop is an interesting and complex situation. The Supreme Court essentially avoided the hard questions and took the easy way out. The case itself is not an attack on conservatives or religious people- it’s a fascinating situation in which two groups’ rights clash and either way you decide, someone is going be upset - no way to please everyone.

Imagine if the gay people were Jewish for example and Masterpiece Cake Baker explains it was against his faith to prepare commissioned cakes for jewish celebrations or black ones or women who work outside the home. Does his faith win every time? Is there no circumstance where the other party’s rights to be served win out? What if he’s a Masterpiece florist or photographer or artist? Should those professions be able to discriminate against Jews and blacks and women by citing to a sincere religious belief? Can you imagine calling a photography studio just to be told, “we do not do jewish events - against our faith sorry.”
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 1:02 am
marina wrote:
Masterpiece Cake shop is an interesting and complex situation. The Supreme Court essentially avoided the hard questions and took the easy way out. The case itself is not an attack on conservatives or religious people- it’s a fascinating situation in which two groups’ rights clash and either way you decide, someone is going be upset - no way to please everyone.

Imagine if the gay people were Jewish for example and Masterpiece Cake Baker explains it was against his faith to prepare commissioned cakes for jewish celebrations or black ones or women who work outside the home. Does his faith win every time? Is there no circumstance where the other party’s rights to be served win out? What if he’s a Masterpiece florist or photographer or artist? Should those professions be able to discriminate against Jews and blacks and women by citing to a sincere religious belief? Can you imagine calling a photography studio just to be told, “we do not do jewish events - against our faith sorry.”

I agree -- the SCOTUS decision was very narrow and didn't address the real issue.

Historically, the tipping point for government intervention has been whether the marketplace provided adequate access to goods and services at competitive prices. Governmental regulation only got involved when the marketplace was clearly failing.

Personally, I would have no problem being told by a Christian or Muslim photographer that they don't do Jewish events. Why? Because I don't particularly want Jewish photographers forced to do Christian or Muslim events against their will.

There is no cake shortage in the U.S. The majority of bakers will happily make cakes for every configuration of couple. Nor, to my knowledge, is there a shortage of florists or photographers. Chasing after the small number of individuals whose faith imposes such constraints is more about activism and less about access.
Back to top

marina




 
 
 


Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:39 pm
Fox wrote:
I agree -- the SCOTUS decision was very narrow and didn't address the real issue.

Historically, the tipping point for government intervention has been whether the marketplace provided adequate access to goods and services at competitive prices. Governmental regulation only got involved when the marketplace was clearly failing.

Personally, I would have no problem being told by a Christian or Muslim photographer that they don't do Jewish events. Why? Because I don't particularly want Jewish photographers forced to do Christian or Muslim events against their will.

There is no cake shortage in the U.S. The majority of bakers will happily make cakes for every configuration of couple. Nor, to my knowledge, is there a shortage of florists or photographers. Chasing after the small number of individuals whose faith imposes such constraints is more about activism and less about access.


I don’t find the above argument particularly convincing. There’s no shortage of bakers and photographers who comply with civil rights laws because those laws exist and have been enforced for the last 50 years or so. If we stop enforcing, I have no idea how things will look in 2069, but there may easily be many providers who opt to serve only their own kind. I don’t want to go back to living in a society like that.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 5 of 6 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Sweet potatoes, red onions & cranberries
by penguin
3 Yesterday at 9:40 pm View last post
Red (lentil?) soup from Fountain Ballroom (iso recipe)
by mamaleh
20 Yesterday at 9:03 am View last post
Red Rash, but not a diaper rash. What is it? 11 Thu, Oct 31 2019, 4:44 pm View last post
RED CURRY GINGER SQUASH SOUP 0 Tue, Oct 29 2019, 2:45 pm View last post
Large angry red mark on baby's back
by amother
20 Mon, Oct 28 2019, 7:50 pm View last post

Jump to: