ubiquitin

To elaborate a bit more

words have to have meaning in order for society to function.
for example when a poster says Democrats support “infanticide” When called out on that falsehood, its one thing to say “dont be such a stickler” I was exagerating/using hyperbole to make a point, of course it isnt true. Fine I m ok with that reasonable people can disagree on what falls in to acceptable hyperbole.

but when he doubles down and insists on the lie being true, THAT is the problem . not everybody is able to discern the difference .

Trumps’ entire persona is built on telling people what they want to hear. As his writer quotes him in The art of the deal “Truthful hyperbole”

“you are only willing to discuss abortion in cases of severe circumstances
Now your claiming only to discuss post birth abortion.”

I’m not sure what you mean. That thread was about abortions of necessity. This was about “infanticide” (not abortion). In each thread I’m discussing the topic of discussion.

“Post birth abortion, while not legal yet, (it means that a mother has the right to kill her baby”

That’s called murder not abortion. Keep terms straight so conversation scare meangingful.

there is no democratic candidate who calls for infanticide. Or “post birth abortion”. As I said. If you want to obsfucate and saysay oh but xyz. You can.
But first let’s stick to the original “infanticide”
Can you name s democratic candidate who supports that?

“, for what is really the difference between killing the baby when it’s inside her or killing it twenty minutes later when it’s outside her, a position who’s lomdus happens to be totally correct. Just reversed.)”

That’s a position that is completely incorrect. And the polar opposite of lomdus . Halacha is full of drawing lines. A minute before shabbos starts you can light a fire a minute after you getcskikah. C’mon its just wanted be minute what’s the difference? Are you for real?
Once rov gufo emerges ” abortion” (it’s not abortion at that point) is not allowed even if the mother is at risk. C’mon 20 minutes it was . Is that what you are saying?

“The quotes are brought to show what the top candidates in the current presidential election hold in regards to the overall idea of abortion.”

Shkoyach!
But that’s not the subject of this thread .
I am discuss ing “infanticide” if you can’t provide a demo crat calling for that just say so. Don’t say irrelevant nonsense

Of course I did.
but the only thing I can ind is Trump claiming the Democrats support that.
Except of course like everything he says, it isnt true

“It’s about if abortion is ALWAYS OK.”
Then you are having a different conversation.
Note you joned the conversation after me, so if you switched the conversation adn didnt tell me, thats on you.

You said “It allows saving a life.”
Several of the sources are not about what we would call “saving a life”
not The tzitz eliezer nor the Yaavetz. Nor fetal reduction (which is not “Exceptional at al)

“THE QUESTION HERE IS ABOUT ABORTION ON DEMAND. not fetal reduction”
what question?

“Does rsza allow these???”
Nope
ציץ אליעזר? נשמת אברהם? Other פוסקים ?
Nope

No?
correct.

“The democrat party feels these are a woman’s right. And to stop her is anti woman.”
Ok so?

“I don’t know how many more times I need to write this.”
None, I got it and that was never in dispute.

Stop coming back with
Fetal reduction
Mothers life at risk
Unviable fetus
Severely deformed fetus”

I won’t unless its warranted. So If you say abortion is murder Iwill say it sint if you say abortion is not allowed I will say it is in certain cases. I’m not sure what your issue is .
And why wouldnt I ocme back with those. Those probably account for 00 of cases where Frum women seek abortions. I’m not sure how 100% of cases can be deemed irrelevant

CY
“I don’t think it’s מותר for the doctor, it’s only for the mother”
depends on the situation.

“We apply the concept סומק טפי (sorry if I misspelled something)”
To what case ?

KY I have another post pending (I hope) in reply

but another probably more common case is fetal reduction.
Again, not al poskim allow it but Nishmas Avraham brings from R’ Shlomo Zalman Aurbach that it is allowed . I don’t know what is done in practice, the cases I’m familiar with are related to a criises pregnancy center

“If a woman eight months pregnant reader she doesn’t want the fetus just because she is not in the mood to deal with having a baby. can she kill it?”

no

“I say that’s murder I’m wrong?”
Yes, ( though, thats not the discussion here, the question was regarding “infanticide” which it isnt. it isnt regicide nor suicide either )

“Show me the source”
Sure. provided more on the other thread. Heres one:
Mishna in ohalos allows abortion when life of mother is at stake. Do we murder one person to save another? No, as the mishna concludes “ein dochin nefesh mipnei nefesh” Eleh mai pre birth isnt murder.
(again some disagree, and of course lots of things that arent murder arent allowed.

I’m not saying its allowed just that it isnt “infanticide” (nor murder, though some argue so if you say it Is murder that is your prerogative)

“If you want to eat chazer”

I don’t

but
a. If there was talk of legislating a ban on chazir I would oppose it too.
b. The comparison is childish . chazir is something that you eat on a whim. abortion is not.
A better comparison would be heart surgery. does the Torah oppose Heart surgery? most people would say “of course not” that doesnt mean it is mutar to show up and say I’d like surgery today. It is muttar in specific situations, that goes without saying. Of course abortion has far more restrictions, but a woman does not generally wake up and say instead of bacon for breakfast I think I’ll have an abortion . That is generally not the case, and certainly never the case with frum women .

“Where is it permitted in Torah sources please?”

Sure

Mishna Ohalos 7:7
Rambam rotzeiach 1:9
tzitz Eliezer 9:51, 13:102, 14:109
yaavetz 43

I replied earlier but ddint make it past the censors
Ill split my reply and reword it:

“How does the Chafetz Chaim know that מוציא שם רע is worse than being מאנס a woman (shockingly not agreeing with ubiq’s moral scale, )?
By seeing what the punishment is!!
(again arguing on ubiq )”

thats not arguing. As I said from the get go, that is generally how severity is determined

“How does the Chafetz Chaim know that מוציא שם רע is worse than being מאנס a woman (shockingly not agreeing with ubiq’s moral scale, )?
By seeing what the punishment is!!”

Thats not an argument on ubiq, As I said from the onset that is generally how severity is determined, but as we have demonstarted there are no fewer than 25 exceptions .

At any rate, halacha lemasseh
A person will either be meanes someone or motzi shem ra. you would tell him better to be meanes?

And to make it stranger: suppose a person is “spreading rumors” saying plonis is no longer a besula.

your reaction would be “chas veshalom how can you be motzi shem ra like that”
He replies “no no its true I was meanes her”
while still a rasha, You are maintaining that he is now better than you first thought because he is no longer being motzei shem ra, is this correct?

“Ubiq I think you side stepped his point.”

I did not .

your lomdishe chiluk is irelevent the bottom line is DY said it best on another thread

“Trump is very far from a bastion of morality…. Trump proudly admitted to arayos which are included in the sheva mitzvos b’nei Noach. In many ways, he’s a big menuval.

I may very well end up voting for him because he will (again) be the lesser of two evils, but please, let’s not pretend there’s such a clear and obvious moral superiority here.”

“I can’t support someone who makes the worst activities into a ”positive lifestyle ””
So don’t .

Though who supports “infanticide” ?

LF

” He doesn’t go around throwing, spewing and broadcasting his lifestyle upon us”

Lol he does. He has been in the limelight for decades. he epitomizes ALL the negative qualities you claim to, that is his claim to fme and how he got elected .

“We don’t curse or bad-mouth him.”
So don’t

” they’re more aligned with an upright, moral standard of lifestyle”
That’s your opinion, and I get that and not going to dispute that.

BUT, take a step back and realize that it is not absolute. you say “have to stand up for what’s moral, upright, upstanding.” and I agree, but regardless who you vote for you have to compromise on your ideals (meaning by way of supportting the lesser of two evils). The only question is which is the lesser,. but it is silly to say if you vote democrat then you automatically support xyz but I can support Trump while still being say pro-truth.

Bottom line:
Supporting a candidate (or party) does NOT mean you automatically endorse/support every position that party or individual takes.

” One more justice and abortion will be illegal on the federal level once again”

there is about a zero percent chance of that happening
At worst they will rule that there is no constitutional “right to abortion” in which case it would be up to the states. Even this is unlikely, but at least plausible

KY

sorry to burst your bubble but you aren’t saying any chidushim, all that has been said over and over for the past 3 years and 4 months or so

you say “Do they care about his personal flaws? Do they even see them???”
Thus my question “If you don’t like Trump’s character, are you disappointed that the party didn’t’ nominate someone else.” doesnt apply to you . You don’t even see his character flaws . So my question doesn’t start .

I see reason to support Trump, I for one support him for his support for Israel (the comment “Ever wonder if these policies of his are politically motivated to buy your votes and curry favor with organisations like AIPAC?” is silly, of course it is, but so what?) however I think his negatives far far far outweigh his positives. A debate that frankly doesn’t really interest me . Because I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
Some might support him for his bullying, they like bullies or his denigrating of those he disagrees with , or any number of reasons or ” he says things like they are” (a strange comment regarding a President who brings lying to whole new levels #alternativefacts)

I get all that. That was never my question, why would anyone support Trump.

However there are people, who say they DON’t like those character traits of his (again not you) to THEM I ask are you dissapointed that someone else wasn’t nominated .
Some Like joseph, said yes they would have preferred Pence but are stuck with Trump so will vote for him over any Democrat. Again, I get that. (though it says something about the Republican party if this is their position )

Others say well we need Trump because a “nice” Republican wouldn’t win . So these people are a bit confused. Becasue they DO like Trumps’s “despicable mannerism” and they specificly want that in their candidate. Yet claim they are voting in spite of it , this is the stance that puzzles me

“So to answer ubiq’s question”

What question?
I know why people support him. That was not my question at all

Ca

“The gist of it is that “nice” Republicans wouldn’t stand a chance against the democrat attempts to paint him (or her) as a bigot, racist, wants to kill granny,”

Yep I got it . option b. Thats fine I get that

Syag
“Don’t take the liberty of replacing *stuck with” with “like”.”
in this context they are the same.

Put another way if it where up to you (and wouldnt create a civil war in the Republican party) say Trump called you and said Hey Syag/CA/Joseph/ KY Ive had enough of this, I’m dropping out and throwing my full support behind Pence, he of course in on board as is the entire Republican leadership , I just want your take . ie you get Trump’s (professed current) positions without the “despicable mannerisms” would you encourage him to do that or say no we need you to run.

My sense from all your responses (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you would NOT be happy with a candidate who was Trump without the “despicable mannerisms”
If you (ie the party, or you personally in a magical world where you decided this) had to choose between Trump, and say Pence .you would choose Trump over Pence because of the “despicable mannerisms”
this is closer to “like” than “stuck with” in my book

” I don’t believe there’s the ability for a write-in candidate in presidential elections, ”

Of course there is

“But at the end of the day I think it is more important to nominate an acceptable Republican who will win the general election rather than a more ideal candidate who will lose the general election.”

sure I get that.
But that is part of my question
why not nominate a republican who will win a general election (and lacks Trump’s “despicable mannerisms.”)
The option I can think of are
a. There is no such Republican
b. You don’t really mind his despicable mannerisms, and perhaps even like them (perhaps this is what will win the election as some other posters said/insinuated)

DY
“The Republicans tried that. His name was Mitt Romney. That didn’t work.”

so thats kind of my point.

Pence presumably has all the same positions as Trump claims to have. On immigration, Israel, etc. Many claim that they like Trump “DESPITE his despicable mannerisms.” So why settle ? nominate Pence* ! He is Trump without the despicable mannerisms .

I suspect that you* actually like Trump because of his mannerisms or to put it more delicatly , “gets the job done”
Romney just couldn’t win over the country just with ideas alone. But when combined with boorishness and imbecilic comments . THAT makes for a wining combination. THAT makes or a nominee you* can support

* I dont mean you personally I mean you as a party

KY

“I could not care less…” My question wasn’t geared to those wh o have that view. I get people who just don’t care. There are all sorts of things that some make a big deal about that others wouldnt care.

Perhaps I misunderstood, the specific quote I replied to. I understood it to mean that they don’t like that side of him, but overall he is better than any Democrat. Ie not that they “don’t care” about that side, they do but embassy or but socialism or whatever.

So this is the position that confuses me a bit, so why not get a different Republican?

Syag

“1. given that some have said they need trump out so he doesn’t get reelected, how is that not election interference?”

I’m not sure what you mean. Every time a person campaigns or endorses a candidate or him/herself its election interference. Election interference isn’t wrong. The idea being of course, that you are acting in the best interest of the country. you think the country is better off with say Trump, so you convince me and whoever else will listen to vote. for Trump. that is fine.

The problem is foreign election interference. A Foreign country (or so the argument goes) does NOT have our best interests in mind, they have theirs. thus a foreign country meddling in our election is to their benefit that is why it is wrong. IF Trump hired a private eye to investigate a rival that would be fine, using a foreign government is what is questionable
furthermore the problem here is abuse of power. Even hiring a private eye would be wrong if he paid him with government funds, or did him a favor as President. He would have to pay him with his own (or campaign) money. Using his office to benefit himself is the LITERAL definition of abuse of power. His job is to enforce congresses laws. when congress authorizes money to a foreign country his job is to deliver it. It is wrong for him to abuse his power and personally gain from it whether by having them interfere in an election or stop blocking his driveway.

2. I don’t really understand your second question either. Are you asking, if Trump is so terrible How can he have been elected by so many people?
Are you asking how can he be so obviously guilty yet they acquitted him ?

Take Susan Collins. she said he is guilty but thinks he learned his lesson and wont do it again (that is almost a verbatim quote) At its face this is absurd. He STILL insists he didn’t do anything wrong “The phone call was perfect” how could he have learned his lesson (even assuming he is capable of learning lessons) ? she isnt a stupid person, she knows he didn’t learn anything. so why did she acquit? not becasue he didn’t do what is alleged (she said he did) not because he learnt his lesson (he said he didn’t) it must be some other reason….

SYag

“And I don’t really know anyone who does (of the group mentioned)”

Its most people I know

I do disagree with most of the rest of your post,”

That is part of my point. the rest of my post isn’t debatable. Eg “Even Republicans agree (now) that he acted “inappropriately ”” This is a demonstrable indisputable fact (I mean some not all Republicans acknowledge this) . another line: “And as for Obstructing congress? Trump publicly said he is hiding evidence and instructed his stafferes not to cooperate.” again demonstrable and indisputable.

what is debatable (as Ive said) is whether these offenses are impeachable.

” I think it’s stupid when people (this is directed at people globally) only support someone if they agree with them, ”
I couldn’t agree more

” How bout they just have a different view point.”
This is part of the problem A Different view point is ok (even beneficial) if grounded in fact. However Trump has ushered in a new wave of “alternative facts” reality itself can be explained differently based on your viewpoint If you dont like the fact, just label it “fake news” If you do like it say it even if not ture. This is part of who Trump is, he (really Tony Schwartz ) brags about it The art of the deal

“Whatever. Glad it’s over.”

Lol! Its far from over. We have at least another year, and probably 5 more years to go.

“There’s a dirty, corrupt situation there. Take Trump out of it,”

Absolutly and thats what the legislative chance tried to do. but sadly only one Republican had the courage to vote to do what was obviously right and take Trump out of it.

Though on the plus side, I am happy to say that I was wrong, not EVERY Republican puts party ahead of country.

“– The return policy you are all referring to is set by AMAZON, not by the Sellers. Sellers do not have an option to refuse to allow or accept your return.”

First of all the seller has the right to not sell on amazon . which really is the end of this reply.
but just to take it a bit further

This notion that amazon sets the return policy with no wiggle room for anything sold on their site isn’t true (have you never bought stuff on Amazon, Ive bought from third party sellers have them arrive broken and its a nightmare to return. what are you talking about? Has this never happened to you I understand you don’y sell on Aamzon it sounds like you don’t buy either )
Here is the verbatim description from Amazon website : both for those fulfilled by amazon and those not

“Amazon.com Return Policy
Items shipped from Amazon.com, including Amazon Warehouse, can be returned within 30 days of receipt of shipment in most cases. Some products have different policies or requirements associated with them.”

“Seller Return Policy
When you order from a seller that fulfills and ships its own inventory (also called a third party seller), your return is sent back to the seller instead of Amazon.com. While most sellers offer a returns policy equivalent to Amazon.com’s, some seller returns policies may vary. You can view the return policy of the seller before you purchase an item by viewing the Returns and Refunds Policy section of the seller profile page. To view the seller’s return policy, once you’ve ordered, …”

furthermore when you return an item, you have to select a reason for return. Obviously it isnt muttar to lie. so if your reason isn’t there then halachicly you cant return it. If your reason is there and the seller willingly sells on amazon, then you can return it.

Of course if the seller is being forced at gunpoint to sell on amazon and accept a return policy he doesn’t like then that is worng. I didnt realize that that was the discussion. Though admittedly it is more logical than anyone having any difficulty with my non-controversial point of “ask the seller if they allow the return”

Most of your other points are similarly irrelevant or untrue
for example “It is not helpful bringing a proof from store xyz that gave you permission to do it. ”

It is very helpful, as it illustrates that the statement “NO seller allows that (to purchase a product with the advance intention to use it and then return it.)” is untrue. Of course as I EXPLICITLY SAID many times this can’t be generalized to all sellers. You have to ask the seller in question

Meno

No of course not
but he didn’t have to write “Returns within 30 days with receipt,” he could write “no returns” he can write “Returns only for people named Gimpel” He can write “Returns only if unused ”
It is his policy if you are unsure as to the parameters of the return policy, ask him. , dont ask us what the sellers return policy is

yochy

“To buy something in order to return is 100% geneivah”
Even if the seller allows it?

“To buy something and use once is 100% geneivah”
Even if the seller allows it?

“To buy something and claim that returning is no issue due to policy is 100% geneivah”
I dont understand, the so who is violating geneiva the seller for setting up the policy? why cant the seller follow the policy he enacted?

“You can spin things until your head spins but it wont change the reality. Cut it out already’
The reality is simple, no spin needed. it is up to the seller to determine if he is willing to accept the return . period. It is not up to you, sorry Making up your own illogical fake halachas won’t change that