Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is Olam ha-Zeh that is unsafe. Eretz Yisrael and America are both within Olam ha-Zeh, which is the problem.
The electors are free under the constitution to vote for anyone they choose. They could elect Romney or Kerry. Indeed, they could probably elect you if you are over 35 and a natural born citizen of the USA.
Electors are usually well established political leaders in their home states, and are highly unlikely to betray their party.
The more frum Yidden, the more variety of times and styles of davening. Over the last 70 years, the number of frum Jews has been steadily increasingly due to both natural increase and baalei tseuvah. Minyanim do not grow as much as split, the better to accommodate everyone’s preferences. Say Baruch ha-Shem and be happy about it.
1. It’s been translated.
2. It reads in many ways like a late medieval/early modern version of the “Medrash says” type books, which are very popular (and which I suspect were based on, or at least heavily influenced, by it).
3. While written for women, it was popular with anyone who couldn’t read Hebrew. While we likely to think that all our ancestors were all Talmid Hachams, in reality there were many people who barely knew enough Hebrew to daven.
4. It should be considered one of the greatest classics of Yiddish literature, but the professors who decide what is a greatest classic tend to be anti-Torah.
It makes sense. Most of the politically correct crowd considers us to be deplorable.
Given the trend in Obama’s foreign policy, it wouldn’t be good for Israel or Jews elesewhere. The free health care is good, but the strings attached might be a problem at some point. Economically there are really no “frum issues” distinct from the overall issues. Morally the Democrats are in a swamp.
At this point, it is probably best to ignore the Democrats “Big Lie” technique (if you something loud enough and long enough, it will come to be believed even if totally false) in accusing Trump of anti-Semitism. The American people saw through the Democrat’s “Big lie” program and the Democrat’s “demonization”, and answered it very forcefully, they elected Trump, gave the Republicans control of the Congress, and gave the incoming administration a mandate for radical change.
The consensus is that she would be “Madam President”. While originally “Mrs.” and Madam” which is French, meant the same thing, is American English the use of the French form is consider more respectful to a person of high status.
There is no consensus at what the male spouse would be called. Some have suggested “First Gentleman” (reflecting that “gentleman” like “madam” is traditionally a title for someone higher than average.
No one had a photograph on a tombstone until less than 200 years ago. Goyim often had carved images on tombs but that’s very expensive (i.e. something for royalty) – Jews don’t hold by graven images.
A photograph on a tombstone will fade fairly quickly, and most people won’t tombstones to be fairly permanent. To make it permanent you need to convert it to an engraving which is very expensive and halachially questionable.
Fortunately, the left wing tends to be anti-gun, and in general rejects hard physical work. The election was won largely on a class basis (the Marxists must be delighted). The proletariat revolted and elected someone they can relate to, and the burgeoise can whine and maybe riot, but they are in no position to object. The “wine and cheese” limosine elite might decide to learn something about the rest of society, since in the long run the beer and hot dog eating guys with pickup trucks will outvote them.
The liklihood is that Trump will be able to replace not only Scalia but also Ginsburg and Kennedy and perhaps Breyer as well. This would mean that by 2024 (if Trump gets re-elected, and the Senate stays Republican) the court will tend to be 7-2 for conservatives and originalists. Since the court in recent years has moved away from deciding cases based on precedent, it will be open season for revisiting many of the socially controversial cases.
So far Trump has been reprising his character from “The Apprentice”, with a bit of “Archie Bunker” thrown in for effect – but I suspect he’ll be hiring some writers for “West Wing” now that he is changing roles.
Actually the biggest threat to “destroy” the country is the switch from “free trade” to a high tariff policy, which in fact both major parties have no switched to, as well as many “populist” movements in Europe. In the 1990s both parties favored free trade, and at present only “old fashioned” Republicans and Libertarians do.
Kollel families are likely to qualify for Medicaid. The typical Obamacare policy requires a large upfront cash payment and doesn’t help unless you have a major illness. This means that one is forced to by insurance that one doesn’t use, and probably doesn’t need (remember that many people will become eligible for Medicaid if they become sick enough to lose their incomes).
He will probably expel any illegal aliens with a criminal background. He might start a trade war (though that requires the Congress) – public opinion in many countries is increasingly skeptical of free trade. He will encourage extreme vetting of anyone with ties to Islamic State. He is more likely to try to buy the world rather than withdraw from it (comes naturally to him). He’ll let Israel do whatever it wants, and will only fight overseas if it is in America’s direct interests and supported by allies. — He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and roll back much of the last 40 years of liberal “creep”, and he’ll repeal much of the environmental legislation and especially administrative regulations, and radically change most anything Obama did the last eight years.
1. Obama or Trump will pardon Hillary (or perhaps merely ask the Justice Department to exercise its lawful discretion and leave her alone – there is no legal duty to prosecute under American law).
2. Trump is an actor. He’ll probably stop reprising his role in “The apprentice” and take up basing his character on “West Wing.”
3. Trump will probably work closely with the conservatives who were not overly thrilled with him, whereas the Democrats will increasingly be the part of Sanders and Warren. Remember that Trump is really more of a conservative Democrat (something that no longer exists) but he’ll want to keep the social conservative, the neo-cons, the Tea Party and even the “Country Club” Republicans in line.
The Clintons have been accused (often correctly) of many things, but never of witchcraft. The crime of witchcraft (still a crime in American states where unlike New York, they never repealed “common law crimes” but merely ignore them) is one that she has never been accused of and it is unlikely she would even have the skills to commit.
In the United States, we hire the leaders. We select them. They are our servants. To pray for the welfare of the president and the congress would be analagous to praying for the welfare of your cleaning lady or your driver or your lawn service. It would be similar to Donald Trump praying for the welfare of his employees. This is probably why many American shuls feel uncomfortable with a “prayer for the government”. It is downright “unAmerican.”
In a constitutional monarchy there is no problem. The prayer for the monarch is a prayer for the country. The monarch serve to represent the country.
In a republic, it is a bit trickier. The legal role played by the monarch (theoretically) in a place such as Britain, in America is played by the entire citizenry of the country (which includes us as well as we are citizens). The executive and legislature are mere servants to the people (analagous, using British legal theory, to the role of the parliament and ministers who in Britain are servants of the crown).
Many synagogues have a prayer for the government patterned after one used in Europe, and I suspect written by immigrants who hadn’t yet figured out that in American it is the people who rule the country, and the politicians are just employees hired to serve the people.
Baruch ha-Shem that we live in a country where all the major political parties include frum Jews, and where the survival of the Jewish community is not an issue. There are many countries where there are anti-Jewish parties running. In Eretz Yisrael, there are major parties who are so opposed to frumkeit that their win might trigger mass population movement or at least civil disorder. Not so in American. We have frum Democrats and frum Republicans.
P.S. It would be nice if said parties also nominated good candidates for president, but to expect that much would be greedy. The gemara says we shouldn’t daven for impossible things. We should be happy that at least no one wants to massacre us.
Parve “milk” (typically made from soy or almonds) tends to have less calories then even “Skim milk”.
In English, “Schwartze” is definitely a perjorative. In English, the language of assimilated Jews, “black” is bad. Indeed, the reason words such as “Negro” (which is a latin root) or “colored” were used to refer to African Americans was that “black” was perjorative since it meant “evil.”
In Yiddish, or “yeshivish” it isn’t clear. Yiddish has far fewer words than English, and there are no ways to say “Black” other than “Schvartz”. Any of the Americans eupemisms sound alien and foreign sounding (and some secular Yiddish texts tried to introduce the word “Negro” into Yiddish, without success). Persumably if you are refering to whites as “Veissers” there shouldn’t be problem using “black” in that context.
A perjorative is rude and vulgar. Bnei Torah do not use such language. As they are directed against those created in the image of Ha-Shem, I fail to see why being “Jewish” has anything to do with it.
Accepting government money sooner or later ends up meaning you have to do what the government wants. It is a mistake to support the government in return for money – since sooner or later they will things like family restrictions (the better to reduce carbon emissions) or changes in halacha to accommodate gay rights and feminism (e.g. cutting off tax breaks for “homophobic” institutions, etc.). For a small and politically impotent minority, Libertarianism is the safest derekh.
When was Trump anything else? When was Clinton anything else? They appear to be what they have always been.
if you want honesty, principles, and somewhat not acting like a bully – vote for Johnson.
If diversity is a code work for excluding religious minorities, as it is becoming in “P.C” circles (cf. the recent comments by the head of the Federal Civil Rights Commission), diversity is bad for frum Jews. If American society will increasingly reflect the “P.C.” views, Libertarianism is good since it limits the ability of those in control to persecute us.
Johnson-Weld are good Republicans running as Libertarians, and they are on the ballot in all states.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. However, if Johnson pulls ahead of Trump, the dynamics change. Remember Johnson and Weld are former Republican governors with libertarian views on social issues, and conservative views on economics.
Any Republican chosen by the Republican National Committee would lose the support of the “deplorables” (previously referred to as “Reagan Democrats”, i.e. working class whites). None of the Republicans acceptable to the Country Club Republicans would be tolerable to the Trump supporters. To unite all Republican factions would require a socially conservative tea partier who wants to build walls and persecute non-Anglo-Saxons, and there ain’t such a critter.
If a Republican wants someone with traditional small government, pro-capitalism principles, they should support Gary Johnson. However Johnson’s strategy was to carry a few states and hope for a close enough election that it has to be decided by the House of Representatives (first time in almost 200 years) and to win as everyone’s second choice – but a Trump “blow out” prevents that.
Actually Trump and Clinton (or Johnson) would both be quite impeachable since if elected they would not have any “mandate” since they would have won with a shockingly low percentage of the popular vote, and with most of their supporters having preferred someone else to be president. This might encourage them to act more mentchlicht if elected, but probably not.
It has to do with European Christian customs, and part reflect their traditional perception of women as being mentally and physically deficient. Traditionally among our people a man would not show favor in public to a woman since that would be flirtatious.
“Political correctness” is what a given group of people assume to be true. Among Democrats, it is politically correct to assume that people who are deeply religious are untrustworthy fanatics. Among Republicans, it is politically correct to regard such persons fine upstanding citizens. Most of the discussion of political correctness pertains to the views of the the “liberal” establishment which tends to dominate most mass media, most popular culture and the education establishment.
What you are asking for is actually asking a shailoh. It’s not a ruling as much as an opinion of what the law is. Remember the same sorts of people who answer shailohs are the same as those who sit on Beitei Din.
Both Trump and Clinton, and their supporters, focus on demonizing those who disagree with them and often very rudely with crude language that would be considered deplorable bullying if done in other contexts. Neither will lead a unified country, which will have a crippling effect on domestic and foreign policy.
1. Ben Carson had an excellent chance, but he wasn’t very well informed on the details of public affairs. Unlike Trump, he would have been acceptable to the bulk of the “rank and file” Republicans, including the Tea Party and the Neo-cons, and would have been tolerable to the Country Club. He would have had trouble with the “deplorables” (working class whites), but he probably would be leading Hilary at this point.
2. As we know (consider the Rubashkin case), there is a problem of the criminal justice system being “out of control.” The Democrats find this to be a problem only when their own supporters get shot and want a limited response focusing on “Blacks lives matter” while ignoring the rest of the problem. The alternative is to focus on the overall problem of police and prosecutors acting as if they are ruling over the population, rather than being charged to “protect and serve”. In all fair neither party really wants to disrupt the entire system, though the Libertarians come the closest.
The assumption that hareidim don’t value secular education is wrong. The difference is that while seculars (and Jewish wannabees in particular) view secular education as a source of enlightenment and as a badge to prove their worth as a person. Hareidim value secular education only for what it can do to benefit them. For enlightment and self-worth, Torah is what matters. The goyim learn secular subjects “lishma”, frum Yidden do it for ulterior motives. That’s the difference.
If a hareidi (hareidis) wants to cook good meals, he/she will learn cooking. Not since that makes him/her a superior person, but because they have a use for that skill. BTW, have you noticed that there are many hareidi households with excellent food – and they didn’t learn that in a frum school. One find hareidim with all sorts of job skills (you really think all those hareidi businesses pickup the need skills in heder?).
It would only be apikorses if you believe it is a mitzvah to establish a secular Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael. If one supports zionism because you believe it offers secular political, social and economic advantages, but do not hold it is a halachic requirement to establish the state, I don’t think even Satmar would consider you an apikores (a fool, perhaps, but not a heretic).
Define comfortably. Some people would not be comfortable with a spacious home with a room for each child, central air conditioning, multiple cars, vacations, ability to pay full tuition for yeshiva and college, going out to restaurants, buying new clothes, etc.
Some people are quite comofortable with beds for each child, adequate access to transportation to get to school and work, ability to finance education even if it involves creative use of scholarships, enough food to eat, ability to afford respectable clothes even if some of them were bought second hand and have been patched.
Seventy-five years ago, most frum Jews would be comfortable with a roof over their head, enough food so they weren’t starving, and not having someone actively trying to kill them.
Of course religious fanatics hold by: “????? ???? ???? ?????”
When governments give you something, it is usually because they want something in return. The zionists give the hareidim money because they want them to “behave”. The Americans give the Israelis money to make sure the Americans will do their bidding and not get in America’s way (with the added benefit that American aid is designed to reserve American jobs by requiring the Israeli to cripple their own military industries).
If Israeli hareidim want to free of zionist control, they need to reject zionist funding. If the Israelis want to be independent of the American government, they need to turn down foreign aid. Neither is likely to happen.
Clean people are considered middle class regardless of how much money they have. Marxists prefer the term “burgeois” because they don’t like getting hung up on economics in choosing whom to love and whom to vilify.
If the local kashrus agency is happy with certifying a sports bar (most wouldn’t), it is there problem. Very few frum Jews would go into a sports bar (“bar” is the problem, these are places for socializing rather than eating).
The government gives some Hareidim money in order to influence them and to try to pull them off the derekh of the “pure” hareidim (such as Satmar) who oppose the medinah. As the hareidi community is largely funded by money from overseas, stimulating it actually helps the Israeli economy since it attracts investments, business and transfer payments from overseas.
The Americans give Israel money for several reasons. A big one is to support jobs in America (by subsidizing Israel purchases of American made goods which could more easily be produced in Israel, albeit at a higher cost). It also addicts the Israelis to American money and gets them to do America’s bidding in the middle east.
Term insurance is only cheap if the insurance company is sure you won’t die during the term. When the odds of your demise go up, so do the rates. They don’t do it as charity.
Other types have an investment aspect which may or may not still be a good idea given the extremely low interest rates now prevalent.
In the US, remember that Social Security survivor’s benefits function as de facto life insurance if you are employed and are leaving dependents.
The fact that the Clintons emerged from a career of pubic services as solid members of the 1% pretty much proves deep corruption, i.e., bribery as a way of life. Better a shady businessman who makes profits than a shady public servant who steals from the people.
He is probably the best known “modern” artist of the 20th century at least among the politically correct elite (among normal Americans Normal Rockwell is probably better known, but his style was too traditional and his politics and lifestyle too conventional).
Are you talking about earliest times or latest times? Are you talking about someone who wants to sleep late, or someone who needs to get to work as soon as possible?
But being practical, since all the people you meet (and those you haven’t met) were all created in the image of Ha-Shem, if you are dan le-kaf zechus, you usually will be right.