Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1. There is no halachic issue. If you accept their theory about carbon emissions causing devastating global warming that will put everyone’s life in danger, we would have no halachic objections to their demands. If as they believe with a religious fervor, that the world is ending, halacha would support measures to prevent it. It is their underlying theory that is questionable.
2. We have a longer perspective on history; our “memories” go back millenia, whereas most Americans go back decades, at most. Based on accounts of what crops grew where, it is clear that it was warmer in the past than it is today, particularly during the period of Bayis Sheini (the “classical period”) and the period of the Rishonim (the “high Middle Ages”). The goyim seem to be confusing routine climate and weather variations with a disastrous change in climate. When the environmentalists claim that their “science” asserts that there has been horrific warming since the late 18th century, they are choosing one of the coldest periods in human history as their “base”. They also ignore that the historic cold periods led to mass famines and migration of climate refugees is large numbers, often leading to acts of genocide, whereas the warm periods in the past were actually quite pleasant leading to higher food production and a flowering of civilizations. Note that even today, those with money go to Florida for the winter, rather than Alberta or Montana for the summer.
3. There is a halachic dimension to be considered, in that the secular environmentalists seem prone to perceive whatever data they encounter as “proving” a pending “apocalypse” (note their similar response to Covid19), and this penchant for seeing a disaster behind every every data set is probably based on the Christian “bible”, leading to the idea that perhaps it is Avodah Zarah for Yidden to take such “apocalyptic” thinking seriously. We have been around a very long term, and by now we should trust Ha-Shem not to shmush us.
mentsch1: Removing the bullets eliminates the heter to have the weapon on Shabbos as they would make it something you are displaying to “show off” and no more, and therefore banned (as per the mishna). Concealing seems much more relevant both as a security move and to avoid “showing off”.
There is strong reason to believe that if Deri were a secular Ashkenazi kibbutznik with a good socialist pedigree, he would be seen by the secular world as a paragon of virtue.
Understand that the relationship of the zionists (meaning those running the zionist movements, excluding the religious zionists, whom the rest of the zionists perceive as freaks), to frum Jews (be they Ashkenazi or even worse, non-Ashkenazi) is at best similar to how the Southern Whites in the US during Jim Crow perceived Blacks, andat worst, how the Nazis perceived Yidden. A ruling by the zionist courts, especially for a political offense, should be taken as seriously as one would perceive a conviction from a Nazi, Communist or Czarist court.
1. If in a situation where you might need the gun for defense, why is it even a shailoh?
2. Based on the mishna discussing someone who wanted to wear their dress uniform (parade armour and parade weapons – not the ones that are designed to be used in combat), it seems very clear that you can only carry weapons based on military necessity, not to show off. That suggests perhaps a humrah to conceal the weapon rather than to show off you have a gun. A terrorist in fact would first target anyone with a gun so there is no advantage to the armed person in displaying a firearm, and it is a shailoh if displaying a gun is in fact a way of impressing your neighbors, in which case the mishna’s objections to displaying weapons would come into play.
Unless they start sanctioning the Democrats who also file politically motivated, and frivolous (which is legalese for for without even an arguable basis in law and facts), it will just make everyone mad at each other. The fact that the judge is a Democrat will encourage the feeling of madness.
It isn’t clear that for people to conspire to defeat their political enemies is illegal or actionable (something you can sue over), and it is allowed to bring a novel theory without being fined for being frivolous. Accusing people who appear to being working for a common goal is not clearly a non-conspiracy. The essence of Trump’s claim were for defamation, and he apparently never argued that the people he was suing knew for a fact that their allegations were false (which is an element you need to prove in a defamation claim).
I would predict the judge will lose on appeal, since the courts are overly disinclined to make it easy to claim that law suits involving politicians are frivolous.
Baruch ha-Shem we live at a time when people can waste oodles of money for expensive foods. Eighty years ago, most Jews could only dream of such luxuries. We shouldn’t complain so much. Note that people have the option of being frugal (whereas 80 years ago, most Yidden didn’t have the option of eating too much).
P.S. For those who flunked math, 80 years ago was 1943. For those who flunked history, that was in the middle of World War II and the Holocaust.
Weather and Climate are distinct (and one should ignore the climate alarmists who claim that every storm, drought, flood, etc. is “proof” of climate change and the coming end of civilization – they are fools and saying a warm summer day proves something makes you into a fool).
If you want to consider “climate change” look at information as to what plants grew where (e.g. Romans always paid close attention to whether a place could support wine grapes). That data, suggests that the times of Bayis Sheini (the “classical period”) and the time of the Rishonim (the “high middle ages”) were worm, and the “dark ages” and the “early modern period” were cold periods. Oh, and warm periods were generally better for everyone (cold kills crops, warm lengthen the growing season) .
Pre-zionism, most Jews living in Muslim countries were subjects of the Ottoman Empire (note they were subjects, unlike most Jews in the Russian Empire who were tolerated aliens but not subjects).
As was true of almost all Christian and Muslim countries, Jews had legal rights similar to African Americans under “Jim Crow”-meaning you had some rights, some of the time. Compared to 19th century Europe, Ottoman Jews weren’t subject to conscription (until the very end, which is after the start of zionism — and in fact in Muslim and Christian countries, Jews did not have the right to bear arms which at least precluded conscription). A major difference between Muslim and Christian countries was the rarity of pogroms and mass expulsions in Muslim countries, as opposed to the Christian countries. Also the Muslims were not as anxious as the Christians to convert Jews (this had to do with the tax system, the government lost money if a Jew converted to Islam). Pre-zionism in the Arab countries (and pre-“enlightenment” in Europe), we had communal autonomy which made up for the lack of civil and economic rights.In all fairness, compared to the United States in the late 20th century (it may be going downhill as we enter the “woke” era), the rest of golus was horrible, but we survived.
sounds like halacha – it was introduced a few thousand years ago
if someone thinks its a hiddush, it suggests serious deficiencies in their Torah education
In most countries, the police only arrest you if you are suspected of committing a crime, and therefore you are called a “suspect”. Usually, someone other than the police (some sort of person trained in law, of a higher rank than the police) reviews the police’s suspicions before the person is executed or imprisoned.
There are some countries, where the police arrest you without regard to whether they believe you guilty of doing something wrong, and usually in such countries the person can be rapidly convicted and disposed of regardless of guilt, and in those countries you would not be called a “suspect”. Jews have often lived in such countries – it wasn’t pleasant.
Marxist: The Brits couldn’t care too bits about the welfare of “Palestine”. The need it to secure control of the seaway to the Raj, which was the “jewel in the crown”. The Brits knew who assassinated De Haan, and never objected. They knew about the 1929 pogroms before they happened, and made a point of encouraging it. Their greatest fear in the 1920s, when the “dice was cast” was that the agreement, acceptable to the Arab’s leaders, the zionists and the hareidim, and previously agreed to by the British, would go into effect, and there would be large powerful and independent Arab state east of Suez. The British Colonial Office played the zionists and the Arab for fools, and were successful at it. What we saw as a pogrom or riots, and the Arabs saw as an uprising, the British saw as an opportunity to maintain their Empire by making sure that the potential trouble-makers were too busy fighting each other rather than fighting the British.
The “divide and rule” policy was successfully implemented throughout the Empire, including Ireland and India. It was successful in starting conflicts which continue to this very day, but was a total failure at saving the Empire, which dissolved in a matter of months in 1947.
The British spent a lot of effort to make sure the above happened. Indeed the whole of British colonial policy was directed at starting the Arab-Israeli conflict. They found plenty of fools, who “fell for it”. They tried the same trick in both Ireland and the Raj (India, which included Pakistan and Bangladesh). It worked perfectly at starting a war, but failed miserably as the locals didn’t come begging Britain to stay.
If the zionists and the Arab nationalists weren’t fools, the result would have been a single Arab state of all Arabs east of Suez (now made up of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the various countries of the Arabian peninsular), probably as a constitutional monarchy under the family that now leads Jordan, with a Jewish population about twice that of Israel (probably fewer European socialist immigrants, but they would have picked up almost all non-secular refugees from what would have been the German-led expulsion of European Jews).
One had to be tahor to enter the Beis ha-Mikdash. No one has been tahor for almost 2000 years. That is why the gedolim have consistently banned Yidden from entering the Beis ha-Mikdash, and why many areas of halacha impacted by the laws of tahorah/tumah are generally not observed and studied only as a highly specialized topic.
And even if taharos weren’t enough, trying to start a war with the Muslims is not in the interests of the Yidden in Eretz Yisrael.
Note that even if a dog is insane (i.e. mentally ill, even by dog standards), it remains unwise to kick him.
What’s wrong with politicians? So how stupid do they need to be in order to qualify?
Unless he has managed to become “Tahor”, and is going to the Har ha-Bayis to offer a korban, he has no business being there. All he does is it rub it in the noses of the Yishmaelim that they were conquered by the Zionists, which just encourages them to make mischief.
When the Bayis is rebuilt, combined with the demographic impact of techiyas meissim, the Arabs will be sufficiently impressed to stand down (and all those who pride themselves on their well paying jobs in the Kenesset will be unemployed since Eretz Yisrael will finally be a Jewish medinah, and have no need for the Zionist politicians, including the self-proclaimed Chareidi members of the Kenesset).
As the Speaker position is vacant, if both the Presdent and Vice-President die, the President pro temp of the Senate becomes President, though it is unclear whether she would get a regular term (it never happened before).
ujm: A generation (or two) ago, it was possible for the Chareidim to ally with the left-wing parties but that’s no long possible since:
1. The Israeli left is now dominated by parties for whom opposition to frumkeit is a defining feature (whereas the Labor party of Ben Gurion et al. was willing to tolerate Chareidim, albeit in the belief they would disappear over time). Indeed, most of the left now sees the Chareidim as the greatest threat to the Medinah.
2. While the Chareidi community is anything but democratic (small “d”), and is basically on oligarchy dominated the rabbanim (who tend to be left wing on economic issues, e.g., supporting welfare for the poor), the masses of the Chareidi community have been steadily become less inclined to follow what the rabbanim tell them in matters of politics, and the Chareidi “street” is increasingly anti-Arab. In an oversimplified way, the Chareidi rabbinim are “doves” but many if not most of Chareidi baal ha-battim are “hawks”.Most of the opposition consists of drop-outs from Likud, and if the religious parties get to demanding, Likud has alternatives. The reverse isn’t true. If Likud says no to the “religious parties” they have no one to turn to since the opposition parties are all anti-religious. While the secular nationalists (other than Lieberman) have minimal problems with giving money to religious groups, or special gifts that don’t hurt their secular constituents, asking for the political leadership to persecute some of their secular constituency is probably to much. Remember that at this time the major opposition parties are not so much opposed to Likud, but are in oppositions out of personal dislike of Netanyahu, and Bibi is old and probably not likely to be around much longer, and the next Likud prime minister will be able and willing to re-assimilate the center-right opposition, and won’t need overdemanding religious junior partners.
Not unless they radically change how judges and prosecutors are hired. For example, “Jim Crow” was always illegal but nothing happened until post-World War II when the justice system finally started enforcing existing laws. The social reality (and this impacts on changes to the Law of Return to sharply cut the rights of secular “Jews”), is that the ultra-secular, anti-Torah elite run things.
If we banned liars from holding office, they would have trouble finding enough candidates, Congress would lack a quorum, and the work of government would grind to a halt.
It doesn’t appear that any of his lies render him ineligible to hold office (e.g. lying about citizenship or residence, such as if he really is an illegal alien living in New Jersey). If he does a good job in Congress, the people who voted for him may be very forgiving; America has a long tradition of looking at one’s accomplishments rather than getting hung up over the past.
1. There really is nothing outrageous about a person having a “preferred pronoun” that reflects their actual gender.
2. They probably are very naive (credit that to frum schooling) and don’t realize that believing one needs to (or can) prefer a pronoun is in fact a pledge of allegiance to a very anti-Torah political movement.
At the very minimum, the Palestinians will regard any state that doesn’t include all of the West Bank including Jerusalem (based on the 1949-1967 borders) as being simply a transitional state en route to a Palestinian state based on the 1914 borders (i.e. an Islamic state including everything between the Jordan and the sea).
A single state solution might work if it includes at least all Arabs in the region (and perhaps including Turkey and Iran), such that Israel is recognizing that it is part of what is securely an Islamic state, with Israel preserving autonomy for itself including its own military. Such a confederation would enable the Palestinians to stop being state-less. However most Israelis would not accept the strictures of living in an Islamic state (e.g. no gay rights).
“red” and “blue” were dreamed up by television news people in 2000, and they were apparently ignorant of the fact that in most countries the left is “red”, and the right is “blue”.
er: Hitler was a socialist who installed an economic system very similar to China in the 21st century. The conservatives opposed him (remember that German conservatives at the time wanted to restore the monarchy, but Hitler was a staunch republican (small “r).
Leaders of the Democratic party include Al Sharpton, who they treat as a senior statesman, who has the distinction of having organized the only pogrom against Jews in American history (there were pogroms against Italians, Chinese and Blacks, among others – mostly organized by Democrats).
I suggest the standard “test” for anti-semitism is whether a potential employer will accommodate Sabbath observance, and it is typically labor unions (all of which are Democrat) or the good liberal institutions that dominate the Blue cities, that are the ones causing us problems.
The most serious laws the Democrats are pushing including punishing large families, banning tax exemption to institutions that oppose homosexual behavior, and requiring students to go to schools that teach a woke agenda. And the supporters of such laws appear to be in the ascendancy.
We are better off with a conservative regime that opposes such innovations and supports the formerly well established tradition of freedom of religion as a core American value, which the exceptionalism that has made America the biggest success since we were kicked out of Eretz Yisrael.
The results suggest that in the 21st century, Georgia is so “red” that only Donald Trump could make it “blue”. Arguably, if Trump/MAGA take over the Republican Party on a permanent basis, and no new party emerges reflecting the traditional Republican platform (pro-business, internationalists, pro-Defense, slightly libertarian, not willing to play games with the Constitution), then the whole country will probably become “Blue”.
I know that all employment discrimination I encountered have been at the hands of liberal Democrats (usually non-Orthodox Jews). The only times I have been physically threatened have been by people who based on ethnicity and location are probably liberal Democrats. I have never felt unsafe, or discrimination against, by conservatives/Christians.
While I know that in the past things were different, we need to remember that what has made America exceptional is the willingness to ignore history. Even at the very founding of the republic, people’s who ancestors fought on opposite in Britain’s civil war, found themselves serving together in the Continental Army. It is a very dumb idea to be mad at the “Religious Right” because of events that happened centuries ago in Europe. To take a more recent example, many Polish Jews tried to be on the German side when Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned Poland in 1939 since the remember the good German behavior in occupied area during World War I.
Based on the world as it is today, liberal (WOKE) Democrats are the biggest threats to us.
The core of the Republicans from the Reagan though Bushes era is still intact. They have some ideological disagreements with Trump’s MAGA group (particularly on foreign affairs and immigration), but that’s about it. Given Russian and Chinese imperialism, the foreign policy differences may shrink, and given that the labor shortage is seriously causing inflation that objections to immigrants may become moot. The core Republican belief in capitalism and social moderation are shared by the MAGA faction as well as the traditional Republican mainstream.
The political question is to what extent the Republican party can keep the MAGA group with Trump, and more importantly, can the Democrats reabsorb those who they called the “deplorables” (the Biden/moderates probably can get them back, whereas the WOKE/progressives probably won’t be able to).
So what’s the surprise? Yidden always had a gigantic “civil society” based on voluntarism. Even in the past when Yidden had a “chief” rabbi, the position never involved micromanaging community services. Every agency (every heder, every yeshiva, every shul, every mikva, every charitable organization) was an independent voluntary organization.
However to most Israelis, this is a serious problem, since the goal of zionism is to rid Eretz Yisrael of Yiddishkeit, and it is hard to do so when you are up against a community whose activities are based on voluntary activities rather than a centralized structure that could be disabled by chopping off the top.
Are you addressing a condition under which Eretz Yisrael is being conquered and is to become Judenrein, and Israelis without dual citizenship would have a problem fleeing?
If there were problem is the diaspora, most Yidden would move to Eretz Yisrael, in which case no passport is needed (the countries expelling Jews wouldn’t require a passport to exit, and the Israelis wouldn’t require them for Jewish refugees to enter).
Neither event is likely. Those Arabs opposed to Israel’s existence are not especially strong militarily and given Israel’s probable nuclear weapon would face mutually assured destruction if they ever attempted to destroy Israel. In the disaspora, while crime is a problem, it isn’t directed against Jews. While the far right favor policies seen as threatening by most Jews, those policies (e.g. support for religious schools, restriction of gay rights, restricting abortion) are seen as favorable by frum Jews. While the far left (“progressives”) favor policies most frum Jews oppose, their policies are against all religions, not just Jews.
Given that the textbook “How to lie with statistics” seems to be the basis of most statistical discussions, the best way to evaluate a statistical hypothesis is to test it against real world data. If there is a serious “shiduch problem” (frum people unable to find spouses), it should be resulting in frum elementary schools having a problem of a shrinking pool of students, and having difficulty filling classrooms,since it our community, the minhag is that women start having children only after a successful shidduch. Furthermore, that can’t be faked, and is easy to confirm. If there is a “shidduch” crisis, frum schools should be closing, teachers should be being laid off and schools will be charging lower tuition since they are desperate to attract a shrinking pool of students; if this is not happening, it is highly unlikely there is a “shidduch crisis”. Note that everyone has a “shidduch” problem until they get married, and except for Adam ha-Rishon, whose problem was indeed unique, these tend to be resolved in a very mundane way.
lakewhut: The Federal government isn’t supposed to be involved in domestic relations, yet 25 years ago they passed a federal statute on same-sex marriage, and now the political winds are changed so they passing a (constitutionally) similar statute with the opposite impact.
That has minimal impact on our community since most of us live in states where the local legislature supports same-sex marriage, so the federal law is irrelevant. It also doesn’t impact the most important aspects of marriage law which pertain to the rights of parents, since in general, “gay” couples don’t have children.
IF Israel were frum by our standards, it would lose about half of its population, including most of the personnel in the most important military units, and most of the “StartUP Nation” type industries. You would lose the massive secular tourism industry, and would lose most support from Jews outside of Israel (most of whom are very secular, very rich and well connected politically).
If you are Chareidi-enough to accept a much lower standard of living, and willing to make the necessary concessions to live under Muslim rule-getting rid of the hilonim is a great idea. IF you prefer that Israel be a westernized modern country with a strong military, you probably don’t want to go gung-ho in desecularizing Eretz Yisrael.
1. The “Respect for Marriage Act” doesn’t affect us since almost all frum Yidden live in “Blue” states, where that is already the law. You do realize that the goyim has always been a bit “improper” in such matters, especially over the last few centuries???
2. A “deputy assistant secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition” is rather unimportant. IF you had such a job, and people asked what you did for a living, you would just answer “a government job”.
One should note that in Eretz Yisrael, notices against speaking Ivrit are posted in Hebrew.
Frum Yidden always spoke and read Hebrew. Aramaic was “mama loshen” only for a relatively small area. Jews in Egypt and eastern Europe spoke Greek, Jews in western Europe spoke a Latin (from whence we get such Yiddish words as “bentsch”). When Jews went from one region to another, they always spoke Hebrew even in modern times (e.g., you don’t find accounts of Ladino classes in Warsaw, or Yiddish classes in Salonika – when Warsaw and Salonika Jews got together they would communicate in Hebrew).
“How did people buy food from someone else before hashgohos”?
1. You relied on knowing the owner, including whom he/she followed in terms of halacha. Very few Jews lived in communities so large that everyone didn’t know everyone else (note: until the early 20th century, even the United States was still largely a nation of farmers).
2. Restaurants rarely existed before the end of the 19th century. Also there were very few processed foods, and almost all food was grown locally and processed by the buyer and their friends. While there are advantages of buying and processing only local grown foodstuffs, any local disruption would result in famine.
3. Products that had to shipped, such as wine, a hasghacha was needed, and wine often had several (e.g. the Rav in France where it was produces, the Rav in Prague who knew and trusted the Rav in France, and your local Rav who knew and trusted the Rav in Prague, etc.).
If you can daven and managed to get a Jewish education through elementary school (meaning Humash and some Mishna, siddur and some halacha), you can communicate in Heberw if you really try. Remember that most immigrants to Eretz Yisrael had only their “cheder” Lashon Kodesh to communicate in. Sefarim such as Kitzur and Ben Ish Hai were very popular, and not as translation, meaning the average reader could read them. The same goes for Pirkei Avos and Humash.
rightwriter
actually, the goyim never saw us as wimps
they attack us to prove they can their avodah zarah’s enemies
if you look hard enough you could find some kashruth agency that would give a hecksher to a casino or a brothel (businesses prohibited by halacha), but I certainly wouldn’t eat there
Do you some basis, other than zionist and Nazi propaganda, to believe that Jews are wimps?
What is true is that our survival and welfare are a function intellect and ruchniyos.
if Ha-Shem did not want us to survive, we wouldn’t
Define “right” and “left” (and remember, those terms derive from the seating in the French legislature during their revolution, which was before any Jews were allowed to vote or hold office).
If by “right” you are referring to the groups such as the self-proclaimed Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Q-ANON, their rhetoric is threatening but they are regarded as nutcases by American Conservatives, and lack any potential to be more than a nuisance.
If by “right”, following groups such as the Democrats or the secular left-wing media, you are referring to those who favor capitalism, fiscal responsibility, personal autonomy, religion, policy that regards hetereosexual reproduction as normal, etc., we have no reason to fear them, and in the eyes of the American left, we are clearly part of them. Even if a frum Jews wishes to be a “Liberal”, we can’t since we are by definition religious, pro-children, and believe that an persons have free will and are responsible for their actions.
The American “left” is probably a bigger threat. It is dominated by secular Jews, are see most of what we believe, including the existence of a creator, to be incorrect ideas that require the coercive power of the state to “correct”. Unlike American conservatives with a long tradition of opposing religious discrimination, going back to the late 18th century when America became “exceptional”, the “left” sees “Freedom from religion” as a policy goal, and since we are obviously religiously oriented, they perceive a need to “cancel” us (thus we see the Democrats in New York trying to close down yeshivos and ban Bris Milah – suggesting that frum Jews should really consider moving to a more conservative, and therefore tolerant, state).
The “Black Hebrews” are very similar to many other African American religions that were created out of odds and ends picked up by people who were not only enslaved, but done so in a manner that prevented transmission of their own culture (e.g. newly enslaved persons were rarely living together with slaves who shared their own language and culture). They ended up “inventing” their own culture, which is why many African American religious groups seem a bit outlandish. The “Black Hebrews” are clearly goyim, and like many American goyim, choose aspects of Biblical (as they define it) history to “appropriate”.
As the split in the Jewish community becomes more obvious, frum Jews are decreasingly likely to be blamed for the actions of a secular cousins (whether or not they are Jews according to halacha). On the bad side, it appears that most anti-Semitism is increasingly from secular persons with Jewish ancestry. Groups like the “Nazis” are universally regarded as a bad joke (and note that contemporary “right wing” parties everywhere tend to make a point of repudiating anti-Semitism), where the “politically correct” left is a real threat to us (note who wants to close the yeshivas and prohibit Bris Milah).
So if one side decides that putting you in a concentration camp is a good idea, they should get the chance every other year????
If you don’t like democracy, try moving to a country without free elections, preferably one with a dictator who doesn’t like you. While some democracies make serious mistakes (e.g Japan’s democratically elected government was very dumb to enter World War II, the local governments in many American cities were dumb to give a “green light” to criminals, the Confederacy’s decision to go to war to protect slavery though in all fairness had they had free elections that wouldn’t have happened, etc.), there is really no alternative unless HaShem decides to take direct control of the political system by smiting idiotic politicians.
Trump has made a point of alienating huge groups of Republicans, including those favoring a strong national defense and a foreign policy of America being “first” in defending freedom, of welcoming immigrants, of fiscal sanity and monetary responsibility,etc. The Republicans who liked Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower are the ones alienated by Trump (though much of his policy appeals to those who liked Robert Taft and Herbert Hoover). With the necons, and the Tea Party, and the “Chamber of Commerce Republicans”, no Republican has a chance. Trump has burned his bridges and unless he wants to be remember as one of the most humiliating failures in American history, he needs to back down and focus on helping the Republicans win in 2024. That means not taking sides in the primaries, focusing on issues, and working to get his base to support the ticket.
…beat Michelle Obama
Attacking an old lady (and former First Lady) would definitely get you thrown in jail, “elder bashing” is consider outrageous, and unlike the House Speaker’s husband, she is protected by the Secret Service
P.S. and in any event, the Democratic Party has a secret weapon which is used very effectively in the 2022 election – they run against Donald Trump; they managed to convince most voters to overlook Joe Biden’s flaws, which was a major accomplishment
Blame the Democrats since they are the party that prefer global cooling.
So what, most of the 1% class support the Democrats. You have to go back a generation to find a period where the wealthy tended to vote Republican. The Republicans tend to be the party of the working class (a.k.a. the “deplorables” as the Democrats call them). Are you coming out in favor of a change in the law to ban rich people from donating to political parties, and to replace it with the government funding all campaigns, limited of course to those with socially acceptable views (a change the WOKE Democrats favor).
The closest thing to “rigging” was that in the Republican primaries, the Democrats funded candidates supported by Donald Trump, knowing that those candidates were likely to lose in the general election.
A lot of the reasons the major countries became less barbaric, starting in the 19th and especially the 20th century had to do with Jewish influences (sometimes directly, or by way of goyim “appropriating” ideas from us), as well as the growth of mass media putting a spotlight on barbarity and making the barbarians look bad. There were always people who though that genocide was morally wrong and should be banned, or that drawing and quartering was savage – but it is only recently that these views can to predominate.
To Yabia Omer: You need to consider what was done to criminals until the invention of modern prisons in the early 19th century. If you think killing a bunch of children is barbaric, what do you think of American and British “ethnic cleansing” in the 17th to 19th century, where the murderers were hailed as national heroes. Baruch ha-Shem we live in a world in which criminals no longer plea bargain for a merciful death, and that genocide and torture result in one being labelled “Hostis humani generis” (“enemy of all mankind” – a legal term the until recently was only applied to some pirates and that only some of the time).
It is very inappropriate to make fun of people who are foaming at the mouth.
And it is inappropriate to make fun of Biden and Trump since at their age, they can’t help themselves.
Blame the fools who vote candidates who well past recommended retirement dates.