Why would an American Jew be a Democrat?
- Thread starter IMCC965
- Start date
And that functioning brain tells them that someone else needs to make their decisions for them???? Good one, a real knee slapper.
derp
The Jewish community in the United States understands bigotry. It exists today in the US and has existed for millennia around the world.
Many Jews were in front of the Civil Rights movement. They understood the hate being thrown at a class of people.
But if the voters perceive you going against Israel, the Holy Land, they will drop you like a hot potato.
Many Jews were in front of the Civil Rights movement. They understood the hate being thrown at a class of people.
But if the voters perceive you going against Israel, the Holy Land, they will drop you like a hot potato.
Has more to go with the majority of US Jews having their history tied to being a persecuted minority or urbanism. The Jewish experience in America has been overwhelmingly urban. There's a big gap or divide between the Jewish people in this country and the descendants of pioneers who colonized the Midwest and western states. Just a different history and experience that leads to a different outlook on life.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
If an urban life experience leads to D voters, and I believe it does too, what changes do you see the Rs taking to remain competitive? Over the next 40 years the US is expected to add ~90 million urban voters. Add that to the pressure from a growing hispanic population and the Rs must be looking to fundamentally rethink their current coalition. Any idea where it will give?
True but the other 12 Jewish people in Des Moines were democrats too. I think immigration from socialist based economies is also a large factor as well as having depended on government assistance when arriving here.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
from Bret Stephens......Wall Street Journal
The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel. That's a shame, though less for Israel than it is for the Democrats.
The Democrats' historic support for the Jewish state has always been what's best about the party. The understanding not only that Jews are entitled to a state, but also that a liberal democracy is entitled to defend itself-robustly and sometimes pre-emptively-against illiberal enemies, is why the party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan commands historic respect.
But that party is evaporating. A 2014 Pew survey found that just 39% of liberal Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel than they are to the Palestinians. That compares with 77% of conservative Republicans. During last summer's war in Gaza, Pew found liberals about as likely to blame Israel as they were to blame Hamas for the violence.
That means the GOP is now the engine, the Democrats at best a wheel, in U.S. support for Israel. The Obama administration is the kill switch. Over the weekend, a defensive White House George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.
True, there is also the administration's financial support for the Iron Dome missile-defense system, along with votes at the U.N.'s General Assembly opposing the usual anti-Israel resolutions. The administration and its congressional lemmings are nothing if not heroic when it comes to easy votes.
But this week Democrats don't have the luxury of an easy vote. Will they boycott the Israeli prime minister's speech? Will they insist the administration put any deal it reaches with Iran to a vote in Congress? Will they support a fresh round of sanctions, vehemently opposed by the president, if no deal is reached?
The administration is now trying to dodge all this by waging an unprecedented campaign of personal vilification against Benjamin Netanyahu (of a sort they would never dream of waging against, say, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan ), accusing him of seeking political gain for himself in the U.S. at Mr. Obama's expense.
Yet the calendar chiefly dictating the timing of Mr. Netanyahu's speech was set by John Boehner , when the secretary of state decided that the U.S. and Iran would have to conclude a framework deal by the end of this month. Mr. Netanyahu is only guilty of wanting to speak to Congress before it is handed a diplomatic fait accompli that amounts to a serial betrayal of every promise Mr. Obama ever made to Israel.
Among those betrayals:
In June 2010 the administration pushed, and the U.N. Security Council adopted, Resolution 1929, which "demands" that "Iran halt all enrichment activities." But now the administration will endorse Iran's "right" to an industrial-scale enrichment capability-a right, incidentally, that the administration denies to South Korea.
Resolution 1929 also states that Iran is "prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles." But Iran continues to manufacture and test ballistic missiles, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demands they be mass produced, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator is adamant that "we are not ready to discuss this matter with any foreigner." All of which gives the lie to weak State Department protestations that a deal will halt the ballistic missile program.
In December 2013, Mr. Obama personally assured a pro-Israel audience in Washington that, when it came to diplomacy, "no deal is better than a bad deal." Now unnamed administration officials are selling the line that "the alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections, and an Iran ever-closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon." In other words, virtually any deal is better than no deal.
In March 2012, Mr. Obama insisted "my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon." He has said as much on some 20 other occasions. But the deal being contemplated now, with a sunset provision that will ultimately give Iran the right to enrich in whatever quantities and to whatever levels it wants, is neither prevention nor containment.
It's facilitation.
All of this is dreadful policy for Washington. But it is a sellout of Jerusalem, one that can't be rectified by some additional military funding or the usual token measures by which Democrats atavistically affirm their support for Israel. Chuck Schumer and other liberal fence-sitters will have their reputations and consciences stained forever if they let this one pass.
As for Israel, at least it will be able to say that it gave fair warning to the Democrats of the historic betrayal in which they are being asked by the president to participate. In the end, everyone is accountable to history. At moments like this, it's better to be on the side of the brave.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel. That's a shame, though less for Israel than it is for the Democrats.
The Democrats' historic support for the Jewish state has always been what's best about the party. The understanding not only that Jews are entitled to a state, but also that a liberal democracy is entitled to defend itself-robustly and sometimes pre-emptively-against illiberal enemies, is why the party of Harry Truman, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan commands historic respect.
But that party is evaporating. A 2014 Pew survey found that just 39% of liberal Democrats are more sympathetic to Israel than they are to the Palestinians. That compares with 77% of conservative Republicans. During last summer's war in Gaza, Pew found liberals about as likely to blame Israel as they were to blame Hamas for the violence.
That means the GOP is now the engine, the Democrats at best a wheel, in U.S. support for Israel. The Obama administration is the kill switch. Over the weekend, a defensive White House George W. Bush as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides, you know there is a problem.
True, there is also the administration's financial support for the Iron Dome missile-defense system, along with votes at the U.N.'s General Assembly opposing the usual anti-Israel resolutions. The administration and its congressional lemmings are nothing if not heroic when it comes to easy votes.
But this week Democrats don't have the luxury of an easy vote. Will they boycott the Israeli prime minister's speech? Will they insist the administration put any deal it reaches with Iran to a vote in Congress? Will they support a fresh round of sanctions, vehemently opposed by the president, if no deal is reached?
The administration is now trying to dodge all this by waging an unprecedented campaign of personal vilification against Benjamin Netanyahu (of a sort they would never dream of waging against, say, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan ), accusing him of seeking political gain for himself in the U.S. at Mr. Obama's expense.
Yet the calendar chiefly dictating the timing of Mr. Netanyahu's speech was set by John Boehner , when the secretary of state decided that the U.S. and Iran would have to conclude a framework deal by the end of this month. Mr. Netanyahu is only guilty of wanting to speak to Congress before it is handed a diplomatic fait accompli that amounts to a serial betrayal of every promise Mr. Obama ever made to Israel.
Among those betrayals:
In June 2010 the administration pushed, and the U.N. Security Council adopted, Resolution 1929, which "demands" that "Iran halt all enrichment activities." But now the administration will endorse Iran's "right" to an industrial-scale enrichment capability-a right, incidentally, that the administration denies to South Korea.
Resolution 1929 also states that Iran is "prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles." But Iran continues to manufacture and test ballistic missiles, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demands they be mass produced, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator is adamant that "we are not ready to discuss this matter with any foreigner." All of which gives the lie to weak State Department protestations that a deal will halt the ballistic missile program.
In December 2013, Mr. Obama personally assured a pro-Israel audience in Washington that, when it came to diplomacy, "no deal is better than a bad deal." Now unnamed administration officials are selling the line that "the alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections, and an Iran ever-closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon." In other words, virtually any deal is better than no deal.
In March 2012, Mr. Obama insisted "my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon." He has said as much on some 20 other occasions. But the deal being contemplated now, with a sunset provision that will ultimately give Iran the right to enrich in whatever quantities and to whatever levels it wants, is neither prevention nor containment.
It's facilitation.
All of this is dreadful policy for Washington. But it is a sellout of Jerusalem, one that can't be rectified by some additional military funding or the usual token measures by which Democrats atavistically affirm their support for Israel. Chuck Schumer and other liberal fence-sitters will have their reputations and consciences stained forever if they let this one pass.
As for Israel, at least it will be able to say that it gave fair warning to the Democrats of the historic betrayal in which they are being asked by the president to participate. In the end, everyone is accountable to history. At moments like this, it's better to be on the side of the brave.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Yep, no agenda with Stephens.
Stephens authored the book America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder[/I] (ISBN 978-1591846628), released in November 2014. The book presents the case that America has been retreating from its role as the "world's policeman" in recent decades, and that this trend will lead to ever greater world problems.
I saw that opinion piece earlier this week in the journal. I think most people on the bus must have enjoyed the amount of eye rolling I was doing. The idea that a foreign president spoke to our congress to influence their votes is appalling to me. The idea that a bunch of Republicans are slobbering over Netanyahu is also ridiculous. Look out for #1. Israel can handle their own crap, they don't need us holding their hand any longer.
Maybe because the Democratic party is the only one to denounce Nazis and white supremist?
This equation has changed a bit since 2015, before we had good people who were just opposed to tearing down monuments watching their fellow activists in protest parade around with swastika flags and garb.
It's nice that I was able to give him a posthumous like. It's also nice that an old thread with some dumb things by dumb people was drug up from the depths of HROT. I sure do miss Mattski getting pummeled here. IMCC still does his drive by posts every other week to OWN LIBS.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,027
- 190,171
- 113
...and shouting, "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US."
Because they don't want any part of a group that you're in. And I speak from experience.
Because believe it or not, many American Jews don't believe in the extreme nationalism that Netanyahu is rolling with. The extreme Orthodox ones do, but the rest would prefer a more peaceful co-existence.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
The Youngest DeJean: Jaxx Earns All-State Honors, Begins Recruitment- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-