Tuesday, August 4, 2020

What would convince me to vote Republican

Sar Shalom

It is undeniable that a substantial faction of the Democratic Party is hostile to Israel. While it is important to distinguish between that faction and the Democratic Party writ large, the growth of that faction is still menacing and that faction exerts far more influence over other Democrats, including those who are generally supportive of Israel, than should be accepted. The question is what to do in response to the growth about that faction. One response is to register displeasure with the entire Democratic Party by voting Republican.

I find voting for today's Republican Party to be totally unacceptable. This is even more the case with the current leadership of the Republican Party, even with the consolation of reduced pressure over the settlements and pressure being placed on Iran. Despite what some might say, this is not an expression of blind obeisance to the Democratic Party. Indeed, if the Democrats nominate either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, I will not vote for that ticket. However, like Bret Stephens, that would not lead me to vote for Donald Trump and I would instead vote for some third-party alternative of write someone in. In other words, there is a line that the Democratic Party could cross that would induce me not to vote for it, but not to affirmatively vote for the current Republican Party.

That is to say, I will not vote for the Republican Party as it is today. That does not that there is no way that I could vote for a Republican Party. If the Niskanen Center were to take over the Republican Party, I would happily vote for that Republican Party over much of the Democratic Party, including those who are not overtly anti-Israel. One of the features of the Niskanen Center is illustrated in Niskanen Center president Jerry Taylor's essay on post-ideology:
Over and over again, [we] engaged in fierce, uncompromising debate about empirical matters that had nothing to do with [] principles or commitments. Is the Keynesian multiplier consequential? Is Thomas Piketty correct that returns to capital are greater than the rate of growth? Do tax cuts pay for themselves? [One] could take either side of those disputes without having to recant any of their principles or fundamental beliefs.
What this snippet demonstrates is that according to Taylor, more important than having any specific position on any particular topic is remaining permeable to evidence. On specific policy issues, there are many cases in which the Niskanen Center pulls back from the line which causes me to reject movement conservatism, and those who genuflect to it. However, the simple willingness to submit ideological priors to testing, when feasible, based on observable effects in the real world is what makes productive debate possible. The Democrats have certain issues where they subordinate empirical evaluation to ideology, such as assessing what the Palestinian Authority and the Iranian theocracy want. The are other issues where both parties share ideological blinders, such as evaluating China's intents. However, the conservative movement, which controls the Republican Party outside of a handful of pockets, has more such issues where ideology trumps empirical reasoning. A change in that will lead me to change how I view the Republican Party.


  1. You have not said what would convince you, but have said why you won't.

    More importantly, you insinuate that Democrats are more empirical while Republicans are more ideological. That is nonsense. Just ask Karen. It does not take some think tank to explain what takes place before our eyes. Intolerance is not empirical. Kneeling is not empirical. 1619 is not empirical. Trashing and defunding police are not empirical. Tearing down statutes is not empirical. Wokeness is not empirical. Indoctrination is not empirical. Cancel culture is not empirical. Abuse of power against political opponents is not empirical. Could go on and on.

    Experts are helpful, sometimes, but they also have agendas. At some point, a person must decide what is right and what is wrong. Experience plays a large part in what convinces, ultimately, not theories, driven by bias, that seem to fall apart in actual practice. You have heard the Biden mantra, "We choose truth over facts." To pretend the reality is different is folly.

    Suggest you read Matt Taibbi's latest piece on Thomas Frank's new book, or Salena Zito's "The Great Revolt." Or "Republican Like Me" by Ken Stern. It's obvious you have no clue about half of the people, and therefore accept the ignorant Democratic narrative about them, at least when you aren't spinning convoluted theories that seem to ignore the fact that humans of all stripes are individuals and do not always exercise the type of critical thinking one finds in a perfect world. That is, when they are not acting like zombies, parroting "Hands up, don't shoot."

    1. "Abuse of power against political opponents is not empirical."

      And it is perfectly fine for DJT to abuse his power against his political opponents. Firing inspectors general who threaten to uncover his cronies' corruption. Launching investigations on matters that have been cleared multiple times but didn't get the desired scalp. The list could go on.

    2. "Cancel culture is not empirical."

      Where do you get the notion that I support cancel culture? Or is your intellectual dishonesty so thorough that you feel free to attribute whatever evil you wish to anyone who doesn't worship DJT? If you care about integrity, you can start by distinguishing between the Democratic Party and the DSA.

    3. "Could go on and on." I agree. You could have mentioned the going after one's political opponents as a matter criminality, rather than keeping politics in the political realm, i.e., debating the issues and even finding common ground and compromise doesn't fit well with the quest of seeking ultimate, permanent control of government.

      And now new footage of the arrest and subsequent death of George Floyd has been released to the media - footage the Minnesota AG, Keith Ellison, didn't want you to see. He said that transparency is good and all, but not when it interferes with a successful prosecution. Oh well.
      I had suspected (strongly) that the story that launched a thousand lootings, fires, injuries and even death of innocents, was, to put it mildly, a quite purposeful jumping of the gun a la Ferguson.
      Sorry, but I never bought into the "they killed him just because he's black and think they can just do it in front of someone recording it, because they do it all the time." I'm not saying the police are innocent here, that they bear no responsibility in that man's death, but the vigilante, pitchforked, hysteria that burned down a country, toppled statues, and blinded some policemen in Portland and has corporations and sports leagues kneeling to a whacko neo-Marxist enterprise was a big time political operation to destabilize our society and shake people's faith in its institutions and its very foundations. And the Democratic Party at best stood back like the sheriff in a town controlled by the Klan, and at worst egged it on, like the sheriff in a town controlled by the Klan, because they think it will help them win an election, because Donald Trump is, of course, Adolf Hitler. We're sure of that info because it came out of the same operation that once told us that Barack Obama was really a Kenyan Once such behavior is sanctioned by winning there will be no turning back. One doesn't arrest undesirable behavior by rewarding it. Even if our former liar in chief Barack Obama doesn't think so. The Democratic Party is his baby now.

    4. Trump has exercised his powers legally. You may not like it, but that is fact. He has obeyed every court dictate, even the most egregious. His predecessor engaged in malfeasance while in office and abused the power of the state. Get real. What do you think they were doing on January 5, 2017? If the media treated Obama like they do Trump, Tony Rezko would be a household name. Not to mention Schiff & Co. However, the point was that abuse of power is not empirical. Interesting you had to go after Trump in that vein, and get exercised over corruption, if any, that pre-dated his power. Why haven't the Democrats brought in Horowitz, by the way, or released the "whistleblower" IG testimony? If you want to speak about abuse of power, watch the Democratic committees in Congress.

      Cancel culture. You are soooo defensive. Is cancel culture empirical? Can we quantify it so we can hash it out in discourse? That was the point. Chill out!

      The criticism directed at you is that your method and approach is too esoteric. You nibble on trees and the forest keeps growing. Plus, insinuate your mind is open, but it isn't. Like so many that hate Trump, and you do, you really know little about what he does and why. You know what you are told by your betters. It's sad.

      John Stuart Mill, though an empiricist like yourself, said: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

      Quite apt from reading you and others tell people about Trump and describe the issues according false narratives.

    5. Speaking of Floyd and the video, a must read column, that should be appreciated by all:



    6. The Jason Whitlock piece is an excellent analysis of what ails us and why. Thanks for the link.

    7. The ruination of sports is inexcusable. Especially because the proponents are so hypocritical. Whitlock connects it to the bigger picture. Something is going on that causes people to be hoaxed, over and over, and not learn from it or come to terms that they are resistance dupes. In the process, as Whitlock shows, from their pretend moral, privileged thrones, they hurt us all.

    8. "The criticism directed at you is that your method and approach is too esoteric. You nibble on trees and the forest keeps growing. Plus, insinuate your mind is open, but it isn't."

      You feel entitled to impute whatever you want to me. THAT is what I call a lack of intellectual integrity. Like the way you feel entitled to impute support for cancel culture. I'll respect you if you represent my views accurately.

      "Trump has exercised his powers legally. You may not like it, but that is fact."

      Many times he has not violated formal laws. But he has run roughshod over norms, many of which are fundamental to maintaining democratic governance. Then there's Portland. Even if no law was violated in his deployment, he clearly severely degraded the ability of federal law enforcement to get the local cooperation that is needed for future effectiveness.

    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    10. Your idea of "intellectual integrity" is a joke. Further, you are the one that likes to impute motive, even when it does not exist.

      That paragraph that has you so bent did not even refer to you, but here you are, once again, making it about you and your emotions. To be clear, you expressed that Democrats were less ideological and more empirical. Cancel culture was one example used to refute that assertion. It's really not that hard to see.

      As for Portland, like so many other things, you do not have a clue. Just this morning: Police in Portland, where peaceful protests took place this weekend after Trump-ordered federal agents retreated, declared an unlawful assembly early on Tuesday after a group of people tried to break into the city's police union building.


      And: Protesters-turned-rioters vandalized and broke into Portland’s Police Association office on Tuesday night, setting fires at the building and elsewhere nearby, police said Wednesday morning.

      Hundreds of protesters marched to the office building on North Lombard Street near North Campbell Avenue and arrived at approximately 9:45 p.m., at which point police said they blocked “all lanes of traffic” at the intersection, according to information released by the department Wednesday morning.

      Police said a “large fire” was started on North Lombard Street soon after the group arrived at the PPA building.

      “Members of the group started vandalizing the Portland Police Association office with graffiti while others attempted to pull the plywood off of the doors and windows,” police further alleged.

      Tuesday night's events escalated even further. In one instance, just before 11:20 p.m., police said a truck dragged a motorcycle through the crowd that had amassed on North Lombard Street, although no one was struck.

      Then, around 11:35 p.m., “the group had set up several barricades and fences along North Lombard Street,” police said. “The group continued to tamper with the doors in an effort to break into the Portland Police Association office and several fires were started in the streets and around the building.”


      Stick to arguing with Beinart. At least he can't answer the convoluted, theoretical mental masturbation in which you frequently engage.

    11. "... is not empirical."

      Cultural values are not empirical, but many things are. Are tax cuts effective at boosting the economy? Are unemployment benefits useful at boosting the economy? Are state and local government assistance useful at boosting the economy? Is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warming the planet? Does trust among the policed affect the ability to restrain crime? What threat would the Taliban pose if it regains uncontested power in Afghanistan? What motivates the Palestinian national movement?

      All of those issues, within some degree of uncertainty, are subject to empirical assessment. On some of those issues, certain Democratic factions disregard the evidence in order to maintain their ideological commitments. On other issues, it is the case with Republican factions and yet others factions from both parties do so. On the Democratic side, it is easier, although often not easy, to get nominated while subordinating their side's ideological commitments to available evidence than it is for Republicans to do so.

      "It does not take some think tank to explain what takes place before our eyes."

      Have been outside yesterday morning and perhaps later in the day? Was the sun in different places in the sky at those times? Doesn't that make it blindingly obvious that the sun rotates around the earth? Yet we have a bunch of pointy-headed nincompoops who insist that the sun stays still and that the earth rotates around the sun. By your reasoning, every ordinary person should think that way.

    12. What we have is "the newspaper of record" pushing a pseudo-history of the United States into the classrooms. This is indicative of the mainstreaming of the noxious and destructive ideas the left has in store for us.

      You accuse school and myself of an intolerance toward those who don't "worship DJT" and then turn around and talk about respect and integrity.

      Just because I have never seen in this country a propaganda campaign of such magnitude against a sitting president, began before he took office, and can point out that there is something unusually wrong with that, and point out that that something has been going on for quite a while and has been getting worse doesn't make me a dupe of Trump.

      BTW, Biden's campaign has announced its intention to reinstate the Iran Deal euphemistically referring to such a policy as "bringing Iran back into compliance." What that means is rewarding the mullahs for developing a bomb slowly and in secret.
      So here's what can get me to vote Republican: a 3rd term for Obama, which is what we'll get. Retired president's don't usually get personally involved in campaigning against their successors. But Barack Obama wasn't just any president. He wants to be the father of a new country, and I rather like the old country and so do Trump voters.
      The media and the Dems have been trying to drive this president from office since the very beginning and have issued one excuse after another for it. I'll give you another reason I won't vote for the Democrats - they don't respect the outcomes of elections, the constitution, or the law.

      One day about two years ago, I took my wife to the eye doctor and was there for hours in the waiting room with CNN on the television. In all that time I counted exactly 1 news story that wasn't about Trump. All the rest were and consisted of a CNN news personality mercilessly smearing. I've never seen anything like this in my life. And the excuse is always the same, i.e., well Trump is just so so terrible that we no longer need to observe the rules of solid journalism. The threat is so dire we can throw journalism out the door and deal in innuendo and nitpicking of the lowest order.
      When I was young there were countries whom we would laugh at amongst ourselves. We have now turned into one of those 2nd rate countries. Sad.

      We're not going to "Build Back Better" which sounds like an old man with dementia trying to articulate a thought.

    13. Empirical information is not immune from politicization. The answers to your questions are subject to who is providing the answers. Your post failed to consider that people in think tanks often conclude based on predispositions and even who is providing funding. The point of the reply was that these other factors, often hidden and not subject to quantification, can be the actual determinant. At least in the real world, which you should join, when you escape the clutches of theories that use empiricism as a screen to "prove" almost anything the hypothesizer wishes.

    14. The wrongdoing of Obama & Co. started in 2012. Trump was just a continuation by these dirty cops and politicians, who tell us they care about rule of law, then violate it with impunity.

      They had to apologize to Jews for wrongdoing. The FISA court substantiated the deceptions of Obama & Co. Some could care less. They wet their pants over tweets, and pretend that there was not an attempt to spy on and then overthrow a duly elected president. So much for rule of law. Then they wonder why there is pushback, with facts that blow their "truth" out of the water.

    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    16. One more thing about Whitlock. The comments are worth reading, too. Many of these people are painted as racists and bigots because they reject progressive notions, but they sound very tolerant. Who is canceling people again? The woke get scared by words and ideas. Rational expressions that show how dumb they are. So these words must not be spoken, the writings censored, and more retribution. Too risky to face actual ideas. In addition, their world view is at stake. Pride. They cannot admit it, even if wrong. What would it say about them, to be so wrong, so duped. And of course, as discussed many times, they are mostly insulated from the havoc they wreak. They are know-nothings that ironically demean people that have much more sense and tolerance, and practice more equality.

    17. "Empirical information is not immune from politicization. ..."

      In other words, you're entitled to disregard any finding whose consequences you dislike by just waving your hand and declaring that those making the finding are just doing their funders' bidding. No explanation of what is wrong is needed.

      We don't want a system where everyone's feelings about what is is equally valid. The result would be that if there is a widespread belief that some international malefactor, say the Iranian regime, is not so irrational, we would have no grounds to attack that belief.

      An example of attacking expert opinion the right way: In the late 1970's almost all of the experts said that Khomeini would moderate once he would come to power. We now know that that was dead wrong. However, we can do more than point out that those experts' conclusions were wrong. One of the few exceptions, if not the only exception, was Bernard Lewis, who reached his contrary conclusion by reading Khomeini's writings. The lesson from that is that anyone who reaches a conclusion about what a leader, such as Abbas, intends while ignoring that leader's communications with his followers should be disregarded.

    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    19. No, you just don't get it. It means that empiricists are not objective, or smart, as they think. It's too simple a construct because it involves common sense and understanding practicality and realism. Before you jump to conclusions, that does not mean measurements are useless.

      You have a terrible habit of telling others what they said.

      Your second paragraph is nonsensical. Who said anything about relativity? Clearly, some ideas are worth more than others. You are conflating.

      Overall, you can believe that "science" is free of politics and the wishes of the funders, In practice these extraneous things seem quite prominent, in many cases the primary reason for the science. Not long ago, it was tobacco that funded the research that cigarettes are good for you. Only in theory is science untainted.

      It's not just a question about what is wrong. Scientists can reach any conclusion they like. It's about the point of departure and how they frame the research. Spare the lecture about how to attack expert opinion the "right" way. In fact, the best way to attack an expert is to show bias. Sad you've yet to figure out something that elementary.

      You should practice what you preach with Trump. You have no real idea what he says or what he is about or how he has abided the law in office where his predecessor failed. You disregard Lewis's counsel. Have you actuall watched any of Trump's campaign speeches? How well do you know the actual policy? Should we disregard your conclusions about Trump because you really don't know about his actual communications with his followers, only what you hear from those honest folks in the mainstream media that have been lying repeatedly to you and in cahoots with the dirty cops and politicians. You seem blind to all this, to honestly believe it was all "by the book." So sad when people speak in ignorance and look the other way because they have a problem with style and politics, not law.

      Finally, you persist in reading things into what is not there. Because one questions empiricism does not mean to reject it. Refusing to kneel does not make one a racist. Yet this is the type of argument so often encountered from pretend moral betters. Too often, these are the most corrupt and hypocritical, as they fail to practice what they demand from others.

    20. "Finally, you persist in reading things into what is not there. ... Refusing to kneel does not make one a racist."

      Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Citing empiricism in opposition to Trump does not mean calling every action by every opponent of Trump empirical. You complain about conflation. Take a look in the mirror.

      What has been lost in this discussion is any discussion of the Niskanen Center. Have you bothered to look at anything on the site? The policy menu lists 14 areas of policy, most of which provide a brief "What we believe" summary of the Niskanen Center's approach to the topic. Is any of that objectionable? Is any of it too high of a price to pay to potentially swing some portion of the Democratic vote?

    21. You are the one touting empiricism as a panacea or a religion, and that we should leave it to the numbers. Don't be so touchy. You had a conniption because you thought you were accused of supporting cancel culture when that was not the case. The initial comment was about your post. Bottom line, it's not about you. Or maybe it's simply paranoia on your part?

      Actually, did look at the site, several times. It is generally filled with eggheads talking to and trying to impress each other, as if they will solve problems. It's mostly hot air. What will swing a portion of Democrats are the antics of their leaders, and others, that adopt extreme positions. The eggheads can keep pretending, but people, who do not pen articles, attend conferences and carry on with arguments of slight value, will simply go on living their lives the best they can.

    22. "as if they will solve problems"

      The only sensible interpretation of that is that we should not even bother trying to solve problems. All we should do instead is through bombast and ridicule at everyone who doesn't bow down to every demand we have. In what way is that not so? If you consider Trump so brilliant, why don't you take his advice on how to protect yourself from COVID?

      As to my saying "you're entitled to disregard any finding whose consequences you dislike," how does saying that whenever you can claim something as nebulous as bias not have that effect, if not intent? You say that you accept empirical reasoning in principle. That is as meaningful as Saeb Erekat saying that he accepts Israel's existence in principle. Just as Erekat qualifies that with exceptions that make his general principle meaningless, so do you qualify your acceptance with exceptions that make it meaningless.

      I gave specific examples of questions that can be addressed with empirical reasoning with a broad category of what can not. You did not address any of the ones I mentioned and instead put up a strawman that I would categorize under cultural values which I explicitly said is not amenable to empirical reasoning.

      "In fact, the best way to attack an expert is to show bias."

      Claims of bias are unfalsifiable. Claims that facts were disregarded can be falsified by demonstrating either that the additional material was in fact incorporated into the conclusion or that the additional material is inaccurate. Was Robert Bernstein convinced by shouts of how biased his organization was (and is), or was he convinced by a collection of facts that his organization disregarded?

      "but people, who do not pen articles, attend conferences and carry on with arguments of slight value, will simply go on living their lives the best they can."

      Most people who don't follow politics closely are sick and tired of both extremes. They don't like each side trying to shove its agenda down their throats and saying "you MUST accept our agenda because the alternative is the other side." Why not offer an alternative that isn't trying to shove either side's extremes down their throats?

    23. Done with this, sorry. Waste of time. When the first thing you say is: "The only sensible interpretation of that is that we should not even bother trying to solve problems," why bother?

      Those with common sense understand it's a balance. Those who don't play zero-sum games. Thankfully, in this case, it's harmless. There are much more important things than convincing you to vote one way or another, when it's simply a ruse to start.

    24. When you dismiss them because they actually care about solving problems, that's what draws my response. When you just say "eggheads" simply because they care about things like details. How am I misreading you?

  2. “In January, Pew reported that liberal Democrats
    side with the Palestinians over Israel by a margin
    of nearly two to one.

    Conservative Republicans support Israel over
    the Palestinians by a margin of more than 16 to 1.”

    SOURCE: Heeding Dem Warnings
    by Caroline B. Glick, 2018 May 25

    Keith Ellison, an anti-Israel Muslim, became
    Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee
    of DNC members, according to Wikipedia.

    “...leading members of the Democratic Party
    like Keith Ellison and luminaries like Linda Sarsour
    openly espouse anti-Jewish sentiments and propagate
    anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; Democrats ignore,
    whitewash, deny and minimize the significance of
    the swelling chorus of anti-Semitism within their ranks.”

    The peril of Politicized Anti-Semitism
    by Caroline B. Glick 2018 June 22

  3. “Rising stars in the Democratic Party,
    including Rep. Ellison and Women’s March
    leaders Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour
    along with the Congressional Black Caucus
    embrace Louis Farrakhan, and defend his
    notorious, virulent hatred of Jews.

    They demonize Israel and its Jewish supporters.”

    The peril of Politicized Anti-Semitism
    by Caroline B. Glick, 2018 June 22

    Mark Steyn said:

    “It is embarrassing that this nut
    [Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan]
    is a power broker in the Democrat Party,
    and the media won’t cover it.”

    Why don't the media care about
    Democrats' ties to Farrakhan?

    by Fox News, 2018 March 8,

    Shmuley Boteach said:

    “Even the American Jewish community is
    feeling more and more isolated as anti-Semites
    now openly walk the halls of Congress and
    parties that have previously been stalwart
    foes of anti-Semitism, like the Democrats,
    cannot muster the moral courage to condemn
    Jew-hatred specifically and unequivocally.”

    SOURCE: Trump’s Love Affair
    with Israel and the Jewish People

    by Shmuley Boteach, 2019 April 8

  4. Jeremy Rosen said:

    “We were fooling ourselves if we thought
    that anti-Semitism had disappeared.

    And if the left wing of the Democratic Party
    achieves dominance, you can be sure it will increase.”

    The One Easy Answer: Blame the Jews
    by Jeremy Rosen, 2018/11/27

    Jonathan S. Tobin
    [editor in chief of JNS] said:

    “She [Ilhan Omar] has made a name for herself
    not by talking about the concerns of Minnesotans,
    but by the outrageous manner in which she has
    trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes as she pursues
    her advocacy against Israel. Along with Tlaib,
    she is one of the only two open supporters of
    the anti-Semitic BDS movement that promotes
    boycotts against the State of Israel.

    She has claimed that Jews are buying the
    support of Congress for Israel and questioned
    the loyalty of her congressional colleagues
    who are pro-Israel.

    Despite this, the Democrats elevated
    [Ilhan] Omar to a seat on the House Foreign
    Relations Committee and refused to name her
    in a resolution denouncing anti-Semitism.”

    Is it Ilhan Omar’s Democratic Party now?
    Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 May 22

    Jonathan S. Tobin
    [editor in chief of JNS] said:

    “If even a popular, pro-Israel Jewish Democrat
    like Adler was afraid to stand up to Ilhan Omar
    in his own city, then it’s not clear under
    what circumstance any member of that party
    would think they could afford to do so.

    That means that the battle to quarantine
    an anti-Semite like Omar to the margins
    of American politics has been lost.

    Not only are she and Tlaib among the
    young rock stars of their party, they
    have far greater influence than anyone
    would have thought only a few months ago.”

    Is it Ilhan Omar’s Democratic Party now?
    Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 May 22

  5. Jonathan S. Tobin said:

    “At its core, the Democrats’ conception
    of the U.S.-Israel relationship is that
    of a great power and a client state
    that must do as it’s told.”

    SOURCE: Trump discarded the
    carrot-and-stick approach to Israel

    by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 June 20

    Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of the
    Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in Manhattan said:

    “The Democratic Party is increasingly tolerant
    of voices that are opposed to Israel’s existence...”

    SOURCE: Prominent US Reform Rabbi Warns
    of Growing Anti-Israel Sentiments in Democratic Party

    by the Algemeiner Staff, 2019/10/30

    Daniel Greenfield said:

    “The Democrats have made it clear that
    if they win the presidential election, they
    will restore the flow of cash to the terrorists.”

    SOURCE: Loyal and Disloyal Jews
    by Daniel Greenfield, 2019 September 1

  6. A fact to consider: In the 2018 election cycle when Democrats flipped many elected offices, Republican Larry Hogan defeated his challenger Ben Jealous to be reelected governor of Maryland, a state that is 2-to-1 Democrat. Instead of trying to shove Trumpism down people's throats, and then complaining that they prefer Democrats with all the real problems that entails, why not offer an alternative like Hogan who has demonstrated an ability to peel off enough votes from the Democrats to swing things in a different direction?

    The Niskanen Center is an institution seeking to promote that alternative. Their symposium on a post-Trump Republican Party consisted of William Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Peter Wehner, and Mona Charen, with Charen saying all the things said repeatedly here about left-identity politics.

  7. Sar Shalom:

    It's like you read my mind--I was thinking a good discussion here would be something like "The Democrats drove us away, but has the other side won you over?"

    But the immediate issue, in my opinion, isn't about Democratic and GOP ideology. It's about Trump, a non-ideological centrist, an outsider who defeated the entire GOP as we knew it, from Cruz to centrists like Jeb Bush.

    The life of Israel is at stake, and in the opinion of many, also the life of the U.S. Trump is the most pro-Israel president in history. Biden has said he would restore Obama policies; this would include taking the side of Iran against Israel. Trump could possibly bring down the mullahs nonviolently, through economic pressure, if given another term.

    The Democrats' descent is happening rapidly. Biden has entrusted Sanders with helping craft the platform, and one of Sanders' surrogates in the primaries was Sarsour, who I guess could now be considered mainstream. Acceptance of support for BDS and Palestinian terrorism is business as usual for the Democrats, including Pelosi, at this point.


    1. "It's about Trump, a non-ideological centrist"

      He might not have any ideology of his own, but the people he aims to please are from the far right, whether economic or social policy.

      "The life of Israel is at stake"

      If that's so important, why do you drive so many voters away from voting pro-Israel by yoking support to Israel to so many noxious policies in other areas?

      "and in the opinion of many, also the life of the U.S."

      What's at stake is America remaining a democracy. Trump checks many of the boxes of backtracking from democracy that have been observed around the world. It's not me saying that. It's also William Kristol, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, and plenty of other solid, Israel-supporting Republicans. Stop yoking support for Israel to that.

      Finally, what is your objection to the Niskanen Center anyway?

    2. "What's at stake is America remaining a democracy. Trump checks many of the boxes of backtracking from democracy that have been observed around the world."
      That's a polemic by some never Trumpers. I think its nuts, and the zeal with which they have made common cause with Democrat electoral crybabies to sabotage and hustle out of office a duly elected president is the more immediate threat our democracy.
      Trump has been in office for almost four years, and our democracy is still intact despite the machinations of never Trumpers and their allies. It is they who are relentlessly on the attack. Just take a look around you to see what they have accomplished.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Recalling the tyrant Trump, from above:

    Many times he has not violated formal laws. But he has run roughshod over norms, many of which are fundamental to maintaining democratic governance. Then there's Portland. Even if no law was violated in his deployment, he clearly severely degraded the ability of federal law enforcement to get the local cooperation that is needed for future effectiveness.


    Except for this:



    Such nice peaceful protests in Portland.

    Which raises the question: Are people that promote the type of claptrap quoted above, and that mythical violence is caused by you know who, simply pretending not to know, or victims of undue influence?

    If even a tiny fraction of their manufactured or propagated horror stories had occurred over the short time since 2017, there would be no election this year, resisters would be in jail, and BLM would not be spreading poison to congratulations of virtue signallers, public and private.

    Will enablers ever see they are used as power pawns, no less than blacks have been under perpetual victimhood narrative foisted by their "benefactors."

  10. Kamala is very Pro-Israel so far even if she will ruin America and its western culture if elected, so there is that.