se2015

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 131 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: vaccine PR #1942598
    se2015
    Participant

    AAQ, if you mean that full capacity now translates into increased rates when the vaccines in production now are done, that could very well be. I am only pointing out that your cynicism about Biden taking over a successful program and pretending that it was broken was unwarranted. You presented it as straight math (1m a day for 3 days translates to 100m over 100 days), but it isn’t as explained earlier.

    “Do they not teach time series and linear correlations in yeshivot any more?!”

    They can start with basic civics lessons.

    in reply to: vaccine PR #1942210
    se2015
    Participant

    4.5 million per week was one number I came across. If I remember correctly it was based on the the number of weekly vaccines allocated to states. Since other countries are getting vaccines as well, the actual amount manufactured is probably higher.

    AAQ, I don’t know who said they were given no plans. I did see a clip of fauci saying the Biden administration is not starting from scratch. Your original question was why is 100m doses in 100 days ambitious, which is entirely different.

    Maybe a good analogy is if you have a weekly magazine subscription that piles up for a few weeks. If you sit down and look through 4 back issues one week, it doesn’t mean you can continue reading 4 issues of that magazine per week going forward because you’re still only getting 1 new issue every week. To maintain that pace, you’d have to either get the magazine to publish more frequently, or subscribe to additional magazines. It’s more complicated than just maintaining the current plan.

    That said, I’m sure some aspect of this is to set expectations that you can beat. But it does appear to be more complex than just continuing the plan rolled out by the previous administration.

    in reply to: vaccine PR #1942108
    se2015
    Participant

    If appointments are being cancelled, then the system as it exists is regressing. Cities that could continue the pace that led to 0 to 1m/day are not being given enough doses to maintain that pace. Essentially the 1m/day pace was possible because for the first few weeks, many vaccines were delivered but not administered, so there was supply to go through (which also means averaging probably gives you a better picture of the overall state). Once those doses are administered, the vaccination rate will fall. According to some reports, Pfizer and moderna together are manufacturing 4.5 million doses a week at close to max capacity, which doesn’t get you to 100 million in 100 days even if they can maintain production.

    in reply to: vaccine PR #1941495
    se2015
    Participant

    AAQ, it’s not just a question of math. Production bottleneck and lack of coordinated distribution has resulted in some areas having unused vaccines and others using up supply and having to cancel appointments. There’s currently an excess of vaccines overall (36m distributed, 16.5m administered per NYT), but getting to 100m in 100 days is not a given without fixing the system and/or approving additional vaccines.

    in reply to: COVID DETENTION CAMPS #1935621
    se2015
    Participant

    Hakatan,

    You drew the parallel, so you explain it to me.

    Are you saying:

    a) a woman SHOULD NOT be allowed to choose an abortion and the same woman SHOULD NOT be allowed to choose to forgo a vaccine, or

    b) a woman SHOULD be allowed to choose an abortion and the same woman SHOULD be allowed to choose to forgo a vaccine

    I don’t remember discussing abortions in CR, but I get the impulse to make sure we’re all morally consistent.

    in reply to: Amen, Awomen #1935585
    se2015
    Participant

    And then a republican congressman tried to claim that “amen” is latin. Hashem yeracheim. It’s OUR word. And to think so many yidden voted for these etymologically challenged kratsmach tree worshipers.

    in reply to: COVID DETENTION CAMPS #1935576
    se2015
    Participant

    We don’t have to call them detention camps. We can call them covid communes. Whatever the name, it would serve an important human rights purpose: covid-deniers and anti-vaxers who insist that their fundamental right to control their bodies means they have a right to participate in society while potentially spreading a highly contagious and deadly virus to others even if immunization is safe, available and free, can do just that. With each other. Everyone else has a right to participate in society without having to worry if 95% effective means there’s a small but still significant chance that they can still get infected from the selfish human rights activist breathing on their face.

    in reply to: COVID DETENTION CAMPS #1935562
    se2015
    Participant

    OP might be referring to a proposed bill (A11179) in the assembly to add a public health law provision mandating covid19 vaccines.

    Text of the proposed law would provide in part as follows:

    2. ONCE THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION’S CENTER FOR
    BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH AND THE NEW YORK STATE CLINICAL ADVI-
    SORY TASK FORCE HAVE APPROVED THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF A COVID-19
    VACCINATION AND PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION PLANS OF SUCH VACCINE HAVE
    BEGUN PURSUANT TO THE DEPARTMENT’S COVID-19 VACCINATION ADMINISTRATION
    PROGRAM, IF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS DETERMINE THAT RESIDENTS OF THE
    STATE ARE NOT DEVELOPING SUFFICIENT IMMUNITY FROM COVID-19, THE DEPART-
    MENT SHALL MANDATE VACCINATION FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF INDIVID-
    UALS WHO, AS SHOWN BY CLINICAL DATA, ARE PROVEN TO BE SAFE TO RECEIVE
    SUCH VACCINE.
    3. ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS RECEIVED A MEDICAL EXEMPTION FROM A LICENSED
    MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL SHALL NOT BE MANDATED TO RECEIVE THE COVID-19
    VACCINE AND SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.

    in reply to: Tucker Carlson Election Fraud Evidence #1921693
    se2015
    Participant

    And by the way, how can anyone be confident that Trump won Florida, Texas and Ohio? Polls showed him behind. What, all of sudden it’s a come from behind win? How improbable is it that Latinos voted for Trump? I think there are enough questions to require recounts and audits. We already know from Trump’s top shelf lawyers that the machines are hackable by Venezuelans, so why do you think there’s fraud in Georgia but not in Florida?

    in reply to: Tucker Carlson Election Fraud Evidence #1921692
    se2015
    Participant

    Health and Moshe: when are they going to present this in court? It’s more than 2 and half weeks since election day. They’ve lost a bunch of cases and withdrew others. Presumably, you hold a press conference to sway public opinion, which at this point is all they have. So while you are not required to show evidence to the public, if you claim widespread fraud, but give no evidence and forgo or delay the lawsuits, forgive anyone who is uninitiated in the cult to be more than a little skeptical.

    in reply to: Tucker Carlson Election Fraud Evidence #1921691
    se2015
    Participant

    ENS: Obviously the computers changed the paper ballot. It’s easy to do from Venezuela if you have the computer manual.

    You heard it here first.

    in reply to: Trump Impeachment – Part 2 #1921690
    se2015
    Participant

    Romney today wrote:

    “Having failed to make even a plausible case of widespread fraud or conspiracy before any court of law, the President has now resorted to overt pressure on state and local officials to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election. It is difficult to imagine a worse, more undemocratic action by a sitting American president.”

    in reply to: If Trump does win, how would you react…? #1921686
    se2015
    Participant

    OP’s hypothetical assumed evidence of fraud and legitimate court decisions that overturned Biden’s victory.

    As many have already pointed out, this is purely hypothetical. If there was any evidence, it would have been presented in court. In fact, the withdrawal of the Michigan lawsuits and the effort now to get legislators to disregard the election points to the fact that Trump’s lawyers themselves know they have no evidence despite what they claim in press conferences.

    Nevertheless, I think the question is a fair thought exercise. For every person who is disgusted by trump, there’s a 0.95 person who liked him enough to vote for him. If you’re happy with the results, it’s easy to say that’s the way democracy works. Losing is hard, especially if you believe a lot is at stake.

    So taking the hypothetical at face value, we are stipulating that proof of fraud was presented and that, as a result, there are fully transparent and objectively legitimate court decisions overturning Biden’s victory.

    First of all, Biden thus far has been a gracious winner. He talks about bipartisanship and being president for all Americans regardless of who they voted for. Rhetorical, maybe, but so far he hasn’t shown he’s giving the keys to radical progressives as many republicans claimed he would. No one should expect Trump to be gracious if he wins. He will gloat and call for investigations and prosecution for treason (raises the question of whether those things can be applied to him now, but that’s another topic) and spend the next 4 years talking about the 2020 election rather than doing the work of being president. He will double down on divisiveness. If you thought it couldn’t get worse, of course it can.

    No amount of objective legitimacy will prevent mass demonstrations and probable violence. There were demonstrations after the 2016 election, but this will be on a much larger scale. Trump has already used military force against demonstrations. No doubt he will do it again, which of course will only serve to further incite violent demonstrations. Hard to know how or if that cycle will end. Trump only escalates, reconciliation is for losers.

    Personally, I have been looking forward to post election and say good bye to the constant news cycle. If Trump’s goal now is to get as much negative attention as he can, he is succeeding. Everyone wants to know how it will end. The only thing universally agreed on is that he will never actually concede, but he might just drop the topic. Will he slink off to Maralago for Christmas and not come back (not like he’s been doing much since the election)? Will he pardon himself? Will he have to be physically removed as a trespasser on Jan 20, kicking and screaming that he’s the real president? But that’s it: on Jan 21, I’m deleting news apps. Hopefully, Joe Biden’s presidency will be so boring we’d all rather stare out of a window and look for animal shapes in the clouds. Actually, that sounds like fun as long as I don’t see trump’s profile.

    So hypothetically, if Trump did really win, the drama will not end for another 4 years. No staring out of windows. Phone calls with relatives will continue to be dominated by discussion of the latest in presidential politics. Children will know more about politics than I ever knew or cared to know at their age. I’m already exhausted, and it’s just a hypothetical.

    se2015
    Participant

    Health – I learned today that I can admire something about Giuliani. If his legal strategy is to sit on his evidence and lose his way up to the Supreme Court, while at the same time convincing his boss that he’s worth $20,000 a day, that is admirable chutzpah.

    se2015
    Participant

    Syag – I haven’t seen anyone here say that every person who voted for trump is a member of the trump cult. The cult is a special category of trump supporters who believe his conspiracy theories and lies. Many people are also calling them zombies because trump ate their brains. I know that because obviously it’s true.

    se2015
    Participant

    withheld – don’t assume that all people who voted for trump support his wild conspiracy theories about fraud. It’s not half the country. Many republicans are disgusted by this.

    se2015
    Participant

    Not everyone who voted for trump is in the trump cult. Trump cult is defined by people who believe any and every conspiracy theory floated by trump or floated by other cult members, just because he said it or it serves his purpose.

    And please do not try to turn this around with an exhausting, “well you’re in a cult because you refuse to believe blah blah blah.” I could also be a figment of your imagination. But in the shared world we call reality, you need rational based evidence for your beliefs or you’re a nutcase. “I don’t have proof that Biden cheated, I just know it’s true” doesn’t cut it – not in a courtroom, not in life.

    se2015
    Participant

    It’s actually amazing that Trump didn’t nominate Rudy Giuliani to the Supreme Court. Instead he nominated a conservative with judicial principles. He deserves to lose just for that.

    in reply to: Fallacy of Identity politics #1920506
    se2015
    Participant

    Commonsaychel: “I hope the lesson learned is not to make group assumptions.”

    Unfortunately for everyone in the world, the lesson learned is that you’d get better results if you hire companies like Cabridge Analytica. Differentiating between the frum person in Boro Park and the secular progressive in Berkley is child’s play even if both have flip phone and no social media accounts.

    in reply to: Should Trump run again in 2024 #1920270
    se2015
    Participant

    Whatever you do, don’t take Moshiach advice from Religious Xiatians.

    in reply to: The Great blue wave that crashed #1920250
    se2015
    Participant

    huju, the Shy Trump Voter is probably a myth. It’s more likely that Trump supporters believe polls are corrupt (rather than mere junk science), so they’re even less likely to respond to them. Pollsters have to try to adjust for Trump support and enthusiasm without data. That’s why it’s junk science.

    in reply to: The Great blue wave that crashed #1920098
    se2015
    Participant

    That might explain why democrats didn’t do better, but not why polling and media expected them to in the first place.

    If the question is why democrats didn’t do better considering how awful trump and trumpism is, I think it’s partly effective branding by republicans tying all democrats to the extreme progressive wing. In Republican telling, all democrats are antifa supporting, police defunding aoc socialists. The electorate is also so polarized that most people just vote for their team. There are few undecided voters and few voters who would consider voting for the other team.

    in reply to: USA USA We’re #1 #1919686
    se2015
    Participant

    Covid hospitalizations are at an all time high. It’s not just testing.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1919642
    se2015
    Participant

    ujm – you are on record here advocating for an anti-democratic use of constitutional power to throw the election to trump simply because it can be done under the literal reading of the constitution (in mark levin’s reading of the constitution). So in the final analysis, ENS is correct: be honest and acknowledge that you want an authoritarian regime.

    Further, Hillary Clinton never claimed that Trump did not legally hold the office of the president or that legal actions he took as president would be illegitimate. She did not claim russia hacked the vote counting machines or that the election itself was illegitimate. Whatever people have in their heads when they vote is their business; there is a long history of propaganda and disinformation in presidential campaigns, but in the end it’s up to the campaigns to make their cases and then people vote using whatever criteria they want to use.

    The question of legitimacy in 2016 had to do with democratic norms and whether the trump campaign accepted or colluded with foreign powers. Had the Russia investigation concluded that there was actual collusion, there may have been grounds for impeachment, but no one ever said collusion would void the 2016 election. Trump’s legal legitimacy was never questioned. Hillary Clinton never claimed she was rightful president. She conceded as soon as the results were clear. So stop with the false equivalencies.

    What’s going on now is either trump trying to maneuver the country into a serious constitutional crisis, or far more likely, he’s a wimp who cannot admit defeat so he’s just lashing out without a strategy, or even more likely than that, it’s a huge con to fire up the trump zombies to get them to pay for his campaign debts and legal fees. Trump has every right to ask for every vote to be counted, to ask for a recount where allowed by law, and to ask for the minor voting irregularities to be looked into, but he does not have a right to claim widespread fraud without any proof. Whatever the motivation, it will have a long lasting affect on democracy and will serve to delegitimize actions taken by biden in eyes of those trump supporters who cannot separate fact from fiction.

    in reply to: Why Trump lost #1919521
    se2015
    Participant

    “The strongest evidence against fraud is the lack of a “Blue wave”. “

    Never trumpers claim this shows the impact they had on the election. Trump lost support among white educated voters compared to last election. If enough of those educated voters voted against trump this time, but still voted Republican down ticket in close elections, that could explain a Biden win without a blue wave.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1919511
    se2015
    Participant

    I think we’re all being played. Trump believes he is playing a president on TV. He has no real interest in governing, but he does like the spotlight. The Trump Show is the opposite of the Truman Show. Trump knows it’s fake. We all think it’s real. Or maybe we know it’s real and he thinks it’s fake. Something like that.

    So here’s what’s really happening. Trump believes that he is building dramatic tension to an explosive season one finale. Will he concede or not? Is he a villain or a misunderstood patriot? Will those loyal to him pull creaky levers of government to help him or will they be pulled to thwart his ambition? Will the liberty bell be unrung? Who really won the election amid a once-in-a-century global pandemic? With an upcoming senate runoff for control of the legislative machinary, will he have the opportunity to flex his political muscle once again and regain his former glory, or will he slink off to cable talk show host ignominy?

    This is why we haven’t seen much of Trump in the last week. He is planning the season one cliffhanger.

    January 20, 2021, 11:45 AM: Chief Justice John Roberts is ready to swear in a president, but neither candidate has arrived. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, herself recently elevated to the highest court through the urging of Trump’s most stalwart defenders, is on hand to swear in a vice president. Mike Pence and Kamala Harris stare at each other from the steps of the capitol. Both make their way to the podium.

    in reply to: Why Trump lost #1919340
    se2015
    Participant

    Is there a collective bechira?

    in reply to: election campaign spending #1919333
    se2015
    Participant

    There will be an outrageous amount of money spent in Georgia on the two runoff elections. Now that we know who is president, control of the senate comes down to the court packers vs the obstructionists. In way, trump will do his party a favor by conceding.

    in reply to: Trump support or a shift in thinking #1919283
    se2015
    Participant

    Common, that was my first paragraph, but it didn’t happen overnight. You went to bed with George w bush and woke up to trump.

    in reply to: Trump support or a shift in thinking #1919204
    se2015
    Participant

    “I was talking to my friends and they told me there is a change in thinking by the younger generation our grandparents were ingrained to vote Democratic from the minute they left the ship and the young generation shifted to the GOP.”

    I don’t think our grandparents saw the partisan divide in religious terms. My guess is that civil rights contributed to aligning white Christianity along the political spectrum so that issues like abortion became partisan and reinforced the divide. If I read between lines of a certain influential orthodox rabbi correctly, it seems that 1960’s culture followed by rising crime showed moral decay not shared by the square republican conformists. There’s also the fact that after a few generations of settling down and accumulating wealth, tax policy and small government become more important than what democrats had to offer.

    Of course that doesn’t explain the blind attachment to an immoral (and profligate) president and by extension an immoral party over the last few years. For that you have resort to color war where you pick (or are assigned) a team that you root for no matter how corrupt or destructive they turn out to be. I assume that people in Houston still root for the Astros for the same reason. How insane is that.

    in reply to: Trump support or a shift in thinking #1919195
    se2015
    Participant

    “Some argue that Trump’s policies and achievements without his personality would have more votes, but it is not clear whether many voters would show up without his personality. Mitt had a pleasant personality but it did not get him enough votes.”

    I don’t think you got that right. Trump without the personality would not have the Mitt Romney problem. If Trump was Trump without the Trump personality (if you can imagine), his lack of policies and achievements would be obvious for all the world to see. No one would vote for him, not because he was too bland or unpopular, but because he was too incompetent. The zombies see the bombast as policies and achievements. The rest of us see a bombastic incompetent loser.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918990
    se2015
    Participant

    The fact that one candidate was ahead and then the other candidate won does not raise an inference of fraud, especially when the explanation is reasonable and was predictable. So predictable in fact that trump fought strenuously to cast doubt on mail in ballots before the election. In the meantime, unsupported claims of widespread fraud are corrosive and destroy any remaining trust people have in the democratic process. Come 2024, the few remaining die hard trump zombies are liable to commit fraud themselves to rectify the unproven fraud they saw on the you-tube.

    You claimed bedford’s law was used worldwide to detect election fraud and your source is an old youtube video? And you complain that the house oversight committee is an unnamed source?

    in reply to: When will reach “Iacta alea est” (the die has been cast) #1918976
    se2015
    Participant

    Why bother with courts and prison. Bring back the guillotine.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918963
    se2015
    Participant

    What’s wishful thinking is that the trump campaign has even remotely begun to meet their enormous burden of proof to show widespread fraud. Not to worry. Project veritas is on it. Two ballots in Erie county and the fate of the nation hang in the balance.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918954
    se2015
    Participant

    “ Which states dragged out the process”

    Trick question! When the state law prohibits opening ballots until Election Day, is the process really dragged out?

    And let’s take a moment to call out the nonsense about benfords law. You can use it to detect accounting fraud, it is not widely used to detect election fraud. Nice try though.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918946
    se2015
    Participant

    The house oversight committee is not an unnamed source.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918921
    se2015
    Participant

    Health, the entire facility processed exactly TWO late arriving ballots that were postmarked on election day.

    The story that he recanted came from government investigators, so sure they could be lying, but so could he. Let’s see what he says in court, not on YouTube. He’s working with project veritas which is not at all suspicious.

    Still, it’s two ballots.

    I know many are heartbroken over trumps loss, but facts still matter. There’s always 2024.

    in reply to: Election Fraud #1918893
    se2015
    Participant

    Trump has a long history of accusing others of precisely what he is doing or planning. Predicting his next move based on his psychological tell was an amusing game before the pattern became too obvious. He accuses democrats of trying to steal an election because he is trying to steal an election.

    מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך

    “Put up or shut up” is right. Trump talks a big game but so far his actual legal claims are unimpressive. His biggest in court claim is not widespread fraud, but that Pennsylvania should invalidate all mail in ballots because it violates equal protection. Honestly, his lawyers should be sanctioned for making frivolous claims.

    in reply to: State Legislatures Should Give Trump Reelection Win #1918528
    se2015
    Participant

    Speaking of furthering ends by any means because you have the power to do so, I wonder what your thoughts were a week ago on court packing when it looked like Democrats would win the senate. I didn’t hear a single conservative say well, they’d have the power to do so, so why not.

    in reply to: State Legislatures Should Give Trump Reelection Win #1918526
    se2015
    Participant

    You quoted me so I dont see how you missed what I said. The us constitution does not authorize state legislatures to vote for president. It authorizes them to create a process for the state to appoint electors who vote. Redoing the process at will a second time (or third or tenth) until you get electors that will vote exactly as the legislature wishes is for all intents and purposes the same as direct vote albeit more time consuming and convoluted.

    in reply to: State Legislatures Should Give Trump Reelection Win #1918492
    se2015
    Participant

    Ujm- “If fraud is found and the courts nevertheless cannot rectify it, the legislatures have standing to act.”

    That was a nice 180. You previously argued that they can ignore the election without any constraints, which as I said undermines trumps entire legal argument which presupposes that an accurate election is a meaningful process. Now you’re saying your anti democratic scheme should be available if there’s an actual finding of fraud (before confusingly going back to your first position). I guess your first order of business is to find the actual fraud sufficient to invalidate an election. Not a WhatsApp message or a Facebook post or a press conference in a random parking lot. Trumpies are making a lot of claims out of court, but their court filings are relatively modest. In fact, reports yesterday suggested that law firms that represent the trump campaign are not entirely comfortable with their role in all this.

    I don’t know what the remedy is if an election is so tainted by fraud that it does not represent the will of the people. But absent such a finding, one can argue (correctly IMO) that article two says that electors shall be appointed in the manner directed by the state legislature. That’s been done. Allowing a legislature to direct the manner of appointment and then to ignore the results and redirect a new manner for no reason other than that they don’t like the first outcome, would be substantively the same as direct vote by state legislature which was deliberately not authorized by the constitution

    in reply to: State Legislatures Should Give Trump Reelection Win #1918370
    se2015
    Participant

    UJM, aside from practical difficulties with your wonderful anti democratic idea — such as that no state legislature could even stomach it — it completely undermines trumps entire legal argument. If any state legislature is free to yank the duly appointed slate of electors under article two, then what difference does it make if any state had or didn’t have transparency, counted or didn’t count votes, kept vigilantes 20 feet vs 6 feet away, switched ballots, shredded ballots, handed out sharpies, depressed turnout or wants to count late arriving ballots. Why would any of this matter if the legislature in any state can after Election Day pick a new slate of electors. Of course the answer is that states have to follow their own election laws. So if Pennsylvania has already established the manner in which it appoints electors under article two, then it needs to follow through and cannot change the manner of appointment after Election Day. Mark levin gets paid to say dumb stuff. Very little of what he says is worth repeating.

    in reply to: Trump, Boro Park and our children #1915295
    se2015
    Participant

    Ted, that just proves that doing something for the wrong reasons merits reward. Where do we express hakaras hatov to Og? We owe more hakaras hatov to the egyptian dogs than to Og.

    in reply to: New Conservative Supreme Court Supermajority #1914944
    se2015
    Participant

    Originalism usually refers to a method of interpreting the constitution.

    in reply to: Sheitels are now BANNED!!! #1914966
    se2015
    Participant

    To be clear he was opposed to sheitels on tznius grounds. This is an additional reason.

    in reply to: spanking #1914890
    se2015
    Participant

    Why stop at children? When a spouse or even a total stranger needs to be taught a lesson, a good old fashioned spanking is the way to go.

    Seriously, if you’re at the spanking juncture, you took a wrong turn 3 or more steps earlier. Spanking is lazy, shows a lack of imagination, lack of foresight, lack of control. If done as a policy rather than in a moment of parental frustration and exasperation, then it also shows a lack of commitment to actually teaching the child in a constructive way.

    in reply to: Name a gadol that says to vote Biden #1914585
    se2015
    Participant

    The only serious farming he did was chop down a cherry tree. For everything else he had slaves.

    in reply to: Charedim Voting for Biden: Please Respond #1914497
    se2015
    Participant

    Health, in the hypothetical scenario that a law like that was ever passed, you wouldn’t have to do a thing. A well funded Christian organization would do all of the heavy lifting.

    in reply to: Name a gadol that says to vote Biden #1914398
    se2015
    Participant

    “ The greatness of our gedolei Yisroel is in their Torah, not their politics.”

    “ A real Godol doesn’t tell me for whom to vote.”

    Considering that almost no gedolim have issued endorsements, I imagine they would agree with those statements. Even rav Shmuel kaminetsky’s “endorsement” if that’s what it was, was in response to a someone pushing him for his opinion.

    in reply to: Charedim Voting for Biden: Please Respond #1914288
    se2015
    Participant

    Health, a law requiring clergy to officiate at same sex marriages would almost certainly not survive a first amendment challenge.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 131 total)