Why do so many Jews in the US vote Democrat?

[Fenris]

I should leave it unsaid, but once again Fenris you are proving yourself to abhor nuance.

Yes, I do.

A Holocaust survivor was once asked if he learned anything from the experience. He said yes, most certainly. When someone says that they intend to kill you, you should believe them.

Hamas won the last Parliamentary election by a margin of 44.45% to 41.43% of the popular vote. And by all reasonable accounts this was a fair election, in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. You are free to dispute this, but this all happened in the context of the ruling party in the West Bank [Fatah] being mired in internal corruption and criticism for failure to negotiate meaningful gains under Oslo. You may take those facts as a mandate by the Palestinian people for terrorism, but it is not unreasonable to view it as a narrowly won protest vote against Fatah. So, using a nearly two-decade-old razor thin margin as proof of current popular support is, um, less than ideal imo.

As RK has said, if they object to Hamas rule and want a better future for themselves, now would be a good time to show it.

As I have said, Gaza residents won't help Jewish hostages escape or hide, not even when offered vast sums of money.

So, Like, I'm unaware of any polls that ask “Do you want to eradicate all of the Jews everywhere because you hate the Jews for being Jews—please check Yes–or–No”‘. Yes I know it’s absurd, unscientific and wildly unethical to put that on a poll,

Right, I mean it would be like saying "Do you support Nazi Germany" in a poll. You don't have to add "and they're a bunch of genocidal lunatics" to make the poll accurate. Hamas whole raison detre is to annihilate Israel via Jihad and murder Jews anywhere they are found. To pretend that Gazan's don't know this is either naive or malicious.


 

I have read the Hamas charter{s}, twice now, most recently for this very post. Have you read both versions? I did. Hamas published a new one in 2017, which is still deeply hostile to Israel, but it does distinguish between Jews and Zionists, and no longer includes the 1988 charter language

Hamas has stated that the "new" charter does not invalidate anything in the "old" charter.

It's consumption for useful idiots.

Is removing that language a sign that Hamas is moderating?

If you said this before 10/7, I would accuse you of being naive.

Saying it after?

Once you say a people “desire genocide,” anything becomes fair game, doesn’t it? Blockades, bombings, starvation, mass displacement—why not? They’re monsters, after all.

Those are things that go on in every war fought since the dawn of human history. Every war creates misery and suffering. Unfortunately, Hamas started this war on 10/7, and now Hamas must be eradicated.

The most lamentable part of all of this is that with very minor reconfigurations, this whole pattern, the contours and shape of this argument…seems like something people would use to justify the persecution and murder of Jews, because it literally has, it is.

And, there we have it. C'mon, say what you want to say. That Israel is behaving like the Nazis. Which to me is the ultimate joke: Gentiles treated Jews badly, but it's the Jews who were supposed to have learned some moral lesson.

If any side in this war is behaving like the Nazis, it's Hamas. With their genocidal charter to murder Jews, which they published publicly and proudly. The Nazis tried to hide what they did from the world, but not Hamas. No siree Bob. They want everyone to know.

[Fenris]

For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.

This deserves its own response.

I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know enough about you to formulate such opinions.

I had no knowledge of the color of your skin until you brought it up, and I simply don't care. "Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me, O children of Israel?" (Amos 9:7)

I think you're wrong, terribly wrong, on Jews, on Israel, and on the situation in the middle east. I don't know if that's because you are ignorant, or naive, or maybe just ambivalent about Jews. Many people are.

And I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, because that would be a waste of my time. But your points should not go unchallenged, because they are wrong, and some third party following this discussion might perhaps be illuminated. 

[Oscar_Kipling]

For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.

This deserves its own response.

I neither like nor dislike you. I don't know enough about you to formulate such opinions.

I had no knowledge of the color of your skin until you brought it up, and I simply don't care. "Are you not like the Ethiopians to Me, O children of Israel?" (Amos 9:7)

I think you're wrong, terribly wrong, on Jews, on Israel, and on the situation in the middle east. I don't know if that's because you are ignorant, or naive, or maybe just ambivalent about Jews. Many people are.

And I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, because that would be a waste of my time. But your points should not go unchallenged, because they are wrong, and some third party following this discussion might perhaps be illuminated.

hm, could have sworn you said you didn't like me, but I'll take your word for it. Anyway I'm glad you did this. Also i'm certain I've mentioned being black on several occasions....nobody ever seems to remember.

Anyway My positions don't come from naivety or ignorance or ambivalence (I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes, certainties and sharp distinctions...it is quite literally unbelievable to me that anyone. In that sense you could say that i'm thoroughly 3rd gen postmodern.

Honestly its hard to tell exactly what you think I think about the Jews. I certainly don't think that the Palestinians are evil and that seems to imply something to you about my view of Jewish people as a whole. Outside of not really believing in the concepts of good and evil in the biblical sense--I've disagreed with with you when you generalize those concepts like evil and good. I don't believe that Israel is all good, or all evil or enough of either to deem it either. The Israeli government and some of its citizens have done some pretty messed up junk and contributed to the current conditions. That doesn't mean that Israel is evil or that they are 'getting what they deserve'. It means that just like any other country the preponderance of actions taken have lead to some wonderful things, and some terrible things. You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.

I'm perfectly fine with you challenging my positions. I think its important to challenge your assertions for the same reasons you challenge mine. On that point, I think you could be more thorough in your rebuttals....for the hypothetical third party if no-one else.

[Fenris]

Also i'm certain I've mentioned being black on several occasions....nobody ever seems to remember.

Because nobody cares about race here.

Anyway My positions don't come from naivety or ignorance or ambivalence

They certainly appear to.

(I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes,

Nazi Germany: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Osama Bin Laden: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Slavery:Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Hamas terrorists: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

I don't believe that Israel is all good

Nobody said that Israel is "all good". No country is. Was the US "all good" during world war 2? Did it matter? They had to defeat Nazi Germany. Sometimes there isn't nuance. 

You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.

Because you seem incapable of distinguishing between Israel, an imperfect but still liberal style western democracy, and Hamas, a bunch of religious fundamentalist genocidal lunatics.

This isn't difficult.

[Oscar_Kipling]

This is an entirely different assertion.

Every other minority group in the world is allowed to assert when they feel that they are being discriminated against. You make an exception for Jews. "It's only antisemitism if I, a non Jew, determines that it is."

You're not a serious person.

If you haven't been asserting just that this entire time, then what have you been doing? No one has stopped you from claiming that you believe Mamdani's statement was antisemitic, and the only other person consistently commenting in this thread [Rabbiknife] has basically been hype-maning you this whole time. Additionally the only time in this thread anyone was told to shut up and leave, it came from you to me.

What it seems you are implying is that no other minority groups get challenged, pushback, accusations of exaggerating & overreacting, flat out denials or disagree with at all except the Jewish people. Hell Fenris, half the American Christians on this board will assert that they are being persecuted, and that that persecution is being denied and swept under the rug or even applauded—and they aren't even remotely a minority.

I'm not about to get into a persecution Olympics competition with you, but the mere fact that you curled your fingers to type such a ridiculous thing is evidence that you haven't been paying attention to the world...like ever. If you can find someone who is pointing to a real or perceived  injustice regarding their minority group you can find 4 more people with hot takes on why they are race baiting, or virtue signaling, or sjw-ing, living that victim mentality, or playing the _____ card, or being woke, or are actually the oppressors, or are doing reverse racism…and so on and so on. Like literally throw a dart board at any minority group and I'll find you more ugly criticism, ridicule and minimization of their concerns, fears and troubles than you’ll ever want to see.
If you want to argue that Jews get more than their fair share then, fine I have no desire to bother with refuting that assertion (antisemitism has always been far more widespread than the population of actual Jews) , but suggesting they are the only people in the whole wide world who have to deal with this is incorrect, and frankly bizarre,

Well, I think it does.

I don't care what you think. Jewish voters don't need your permission to feel threatened.

Again, in what universe is me thinking a thing tantamount to denying you permission to think something else? Bro, you are falling apart at the seams.

 

That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues.

Yes, I take it seriously when the public safety of Jews is being threatened. If only you took is as seriously. But hey, it isn't your ox being gored, eh?

Look, I’m willing to be convinced, but your grasp of basic facts about what things are, when stuff happened, what exactly happened and to whom, has been woefully inadequate—and none of that would matter if it wasn't the justification for why you are factually correct and i’m factually incorrect. If you were simply telling me how you feel without insisting that how I feel is an attack on your right or ability to feel how you feel then I would feel differently. But you are telling me that my opinion is doing you and all Jewish people harm on some level, and you are justifying this with a slew of inaccurate and misleaded information.

You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that.

Why would there need to be anything else? Murder of civilians isn't enough for you? You're behaving like the pseudo historians who say "Sure Hitler murdered millions of Jews. But he also made the trains run on time! There was more to the situation than meets the eye. It was nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

Need has nothing to do with it, there is what actually occurred. You are narrowing what intifadas were just so you can support your point that intifada is "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". If intifada means anything above beyond or outside of that artificially truncated description then the factual basis of your argument is rendered inert. And I don't even know why you keep trying to back this up with twisted facts and misleading historical points when all you've really been saying this whole time is that you're angry and afraid. I mean hell Fenris, me too.

Most is not all

There were anti Nazi Germans, too. But we treated the state as though it was an enemy, which it was.  Or are we going back to "Nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

And saying every German was a Nazi would have still been an overgeneralization whether or not it was strategically useful to firebomb cities full of civilians. We’ve had this debate before, I don’t have to pretend that every German that was killed was a bad guy or even a Nazi sympathizer in order to understand and appreciate the wartime utility in killing them. However to me this context is the crux of the argument against genocide, otherwise why not murder every last german or japanese citizen. If it is meaningless to consider who is or isn’t an irredeemable monster, then turn the whole region into glass or, idk, pillars of salt or whatever.

This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just

Because they have.

I don’t believe this about any group of humans, I don’t even believe this about my own dear sweet grandma.

That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable.

I understand the concept. When one side wants to commit genocide, it's hard to see the "nuance" though. Eh?

Clearly.

1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too.

The Peel plan is the best one to illustrate that it's not about Israel's borders, it's Israel's existence that the Palestinians are opposed to.

The Arabs refused this map:
—-MAP REDACTED—-
Because they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small. Nothing else needs be said.

So I guess you are just dropping the other 6 dates with no acknowledgement whatsoever—like I didn’t point by point disassemble your claim that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve. “.

So outside of the fact that the Zionists rejected it too, or I should say did not agree to the plan, Lets disassemble this slightly new point. One of the main Palestinian gripes wasn't about how large a portion that Israel got, but yes in fact that Israel got anything at all. Not for nothing they believed whether erroneously or not that the British empire which was the colonizing power at the time (1915-ish) had promised them a Palestinian state whereby Israel was not a part of this original calculus at all. From the Palestinian perspective the idea of a Jewish state was reneging on the original British promise of Palestine–Moreover they didn't like being beholden to British arbitration of what would happen with the region in the first place.

But regarding the split, you showed a map, which I suppose is meant to appeal to my intuition of fairness because it looks like the Arabs get most of the land and Israel gets a small but fair portion. I mean ~70% was to go to the Arabs. An interesting point about that map is that the Israeli portion is green, and coincidentally the Israeli portion contains something like 80% of the fertile land in the region at the time. The Palestinians thought that this was an inequitable split. So not only did they feel that the British broke their promise of the land of Palestine in order to give these late coming Zionists their own country, the British planned to give them 80% of the arable land in the deal.

Now you can argue that the Palestinians should have been cool with this despite their misgivings and perceived betrayal and lack of self determination  anyway in order to help the Jews, but as you said of Israel: I don't see why this is Palestine's fault or Palestine's problem to solve.

I believe that you are heavily insinuating that the Palestinians rejected this plan for antisemitic reasons, that they simply could not tolerate a Jewish state merely because it would be populated by Jews whom they hate. But even if they did (and you would have to show me some evidence of that beyond just asserting it), then its was like the 4th or 5th thing on the list. You’ve failed to even make a reasonable attempt at supporting your original point that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “--and you've utterly failed to support your new point with anything other than feelings about how a map looks without even acknowledging the main historically recorded issues that Palestinians actually had with the plan...and then you sort of vaguely assert antisemitism without any additional supporting evidence.
 

It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"?

That's what they're behaving like, yes. Or are we back to "Nuanced!!"?

I never left the nuance anywhere to have to come back to it. It is safe to assume that nuance is an important aspect of pretty much anything I think.

You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.

It's kind of amazing. Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out. I guess I should work on my "Nuanced!!"

I mean, yeah, I think it would help you to approach this topic with more nuance. You say it like it's a dirty word, or like it will make you weaker or less capable of seeing the danger clearly, and I don't think it will. If anything I think it will help you to see more and varied dangers and help you avoid some.

Edit:

Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or helped a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out.

I have to wonder how you know this? Or more precisely how you know that no Gazan has attempted such a thing unsuccessfully? Moreover Nazi Germany and Palestine are dissimilar in some fundamental ways, mainly that Nazi Germany while authoritarian was a functioning state with a functioning economy that had not been under blockade for the last 15 years or so. In Nazi Germany many people were in the socioeconomic position to Help Jews, even then, records indicate they rarely did.... and it was even rarer still for impoverished people (like the Palestinians often are) to help hide Jews.

Which brings me to the biggest difference, In the Nazi situation they were hiding Jews...hiding. And especially in the cases of poor or working class helpers these were overwhelmingly Jews that they knew, their neighbors, friends, lovers and other people they had some relationships with. I'm not pointing that out to say there is anything wrong with that, but to say that hiding your literal next door neighbor's children in your barn is a wholly different proposition from rescuing a hostage from a violent terrorist paramilitary group. Hostage rescue even for Mossad is a tough ask even though they frequent have have excellent intelligence, excellent planning, excellent training, excellent armament and excellent logistical support. It would be like if instead of August Landmesser attempting to flee Hamburg with his Jewish fiancée, he had successfully orchestrated a plan to break some unrelated Jewish woman out of Neuengamme.... A personal act of resistance born of love and proximity. Still dangerous, but emotionally and logistically grounded VS A full-blown armed extraction mission against a heavily guarded facility run by an authoritarian regime with brutal, surveillance and instant execution.

You're bigoted because your views are bigoted, but this isn't just a case of you being a bigot--You're claiming to know that no one has done a thing, even unsuccessfully, when you have no real way of actually knowing this. And you are equating hiding Jews in Germany to rescuing hostages from a brutal armed militia.

You're employing all this pretzel logic for what? To maintain that not only is military action justified, but that the enemy consists of hateful cowards that aren't even as noble as ignominious Nazis? Personally I think we broad brush or straight up lie about our enemies like this because even in this day and age of precision weapons and Geneva conventions, war is still brutal and often cruel. If they aren't monsters, we'd feel bad about killing them, and intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly harming or killing civilians. I think we should be honest and we should live with the fact that we are probably going to do things in war that we should definitely feel bad about. This acknowledgment imo is one of the many useful self-checks and balances against cruelty, war crimes and genocide. Let it feel bad.

[Oscar_Kipling]

(I mean, maybe some of them--we all have blind spots) they come from looking at the word around me, and what I don't see is a world where any country or religion or group or individual can neatly fit into the category of either good or evil (even in the colloquial sense). When people talk in absolutes I'm immediately suspicious because I don't see a world full of absolutes,

Nazi Germany: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Osama Bin Laden: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Slavery:Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

Hamas terrorists: Absolutely bad? Or "nuance"?

WTH is absolute bad? I do not know what that means bro. Then "or nuance"? I'm starting to think that word does not mean what you think it means. Nuanced and bad are not antonyms. Something can be bad, unhealthy, destructive, cruel, dangerous or any number of negative things while also containing nuance or while also containing good or leading to something good.

But here, so you can be shocked at how crazy I am: Yes there is nuance to everything on your list. Moreover I could say something good about everything on that list except maybe Osama bin laden, cuz I don't really know that much about him as a person...but I guess he could grow a hell of a beard,idk.

So now that I've said that it certainly doesn't mean that  I think we should bring any of those things back due to any nominal good or nuance therein. The Nazi's did some really cool science (and plenty of cruel murderous  unhinged psuedoscience too), but you don't need to bring back Nazi ideology to build innovative airplanes or rockets.

You gave me this challenge, I think because, you may think that if I recognize something like the fact that the beautiful unique black American culture was in part forged by the brutal and inhumane fires of slavery, then I cannot truly repudiate the practice of slavery. Or that I'm in danger of rationalizing slavery?

I don't believe that Israel is all good

Nobody said that Israel is "all good". No country is. Was the US "all good" during world war 2? Did it matter? They had to defeat Nazi Germany. Sometimes there isn't nuance. 

Actually, you're right I should have been more specific. I don't think Israel is the good guy who has done everything to be fair and just in the entire history of its dealings with the Palestinian people.

So if there is nuance to Nazi Germany then you are somehow prevented from defeating the Nazis? walk me through that logic please.

You seem to take my refusal to credit Israel with good guy status as an affront, or worse as antisemitism or even worse as tacit approval of the terrorization and murder of its citizens.

Because you seem incapable of distinguishing between Israel, an imperfect but still liberal style western democracy, and Hamas, a bunch of religious fundamentalist genocidal lunatics.

This isn't difficult.

I distinguish between them perfectly fine. What would I be doing differently if I distinguished between them correctly?

[Fenris]

You're bigoted because your views are bigoted

Says the guy who can find "nuance" even in Nazi Germany.

Buh bye.

[Dani B]

And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.

Imagine being a woman and recoiling inwardly at the thought of voting for a rapist with a history of sexual assault against women (and apparently children depending on who you believe as we have seen in the case of Schrödinger's Epstein files which exist but also not and are here, there, and everywhere, but also nowhere ... including the AG's desk but also not really).

Imagine also being an American Constitutionalist and therefore ending up voting for the same individual in 2020, for the sake of "we must have checks and balances and not one party in power of all things because that's superbad as human history has repeatedly proven".

It's never simple, but as grown-ups we must do hard, always.

If you're beholden to any party as an American voter, rather than being beholden to the Constitution, I'm not sure what to say about that.

I'm certainly not going to vote for nor against anyone on the basis of rhetoric, because political candidates use many wordy words in order to "win" some election.

I'm going to vote on the basis of the Constitution of my country that I am a citizen of, as is my civic duty, because without upholding our Constitution, we are all lawless and there IS no United States of America. We have a bedrock. And that bedrock is clear as day.

So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?

[Fenris]

So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?

Hey Dani. 

All the candidates in that race are terrible for one reason or another.

But Mamdani is the worst by far. Full blown socialist, anti cop and anti law and order, pro terrorist, anti semitic, and he's 33 years old and having grown up in the lap of luxury, he's never had a real job.

Basically anybody but him. But he's likely to win because it's NYC and he's the Democrat nominee.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You're bigoted because your views are bigoted

Says the guy who can find "nuance" even in Nazi Germany.

Buh bye.

Again, I don't think you know what the word nuance means , else you wouldn't have posed the question of "absolute bad or nuance" in the first place. You posed a meaningless question and I tried to give a nuanced answer , fully suspecting that this is how you would react. I suppose it was a fine rhetorical maneuver.

Regardless, if you want to end it here then I still maintain that you have failed to meaningfully support your claims such as "intifada is a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east" and "“The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected it every time. “. or that the Palestinian people are "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians" or that "Israel is the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just". You would need to support those ideas outside of my stances on nuance or the reality of good and evil in the world/

Funally, whether or not my take on Nazi's or Slavery or Osama Bin Laden or Hamas are misguided or more nuanced than any of them deserve, at least some of the views you've expressed here are still bigoted sweeping generalizations and demonization and any misguided.  My views do not suddenly grant your views legitimacy, credence or make them any less bigoted...that isn't how that works. 

[Dani B]

So, based on that -- where does this leave the NYC mayoral race and its candidates?

Hey Dani. 

All the candidates in that race are terrible for one reason or another.

But Mamdani is the worst by far. Full blown socialist, anti cop and anti law and order, pro terrorist, anti semitic, and he's 33 years old and having grown up in the lap of luxury, he's never had a real job.

Basically anybody but him. But he's likely to win because it's NYC and he's the Democrat nominee.

Hi friend!

I grew up in a semi-socialist country (former West Germany) and don't quite understand the American mentality against socialism that's been successfully implemented in so many European countries for a long time now.

I personally think the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST!!!!" irrational fear is mostly driven by hyper-capitalist Wall Street because they control so much of our government and don't want anyone stepping on their obscene profits.

And if they can't make "socialist" stick they automatically then jump the fence to "radical Communist/Marxist" -- whatever that means because there is definitely a Communist Party in the United States, but the Democratic Party isn't it.

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat and I'm just watching the rhetoric blow up all over the place, and to me it's just ... drama for political points.

[Fenris]

Hi friend!

Welcome!

I grew up in a semi-socialist country (former West Germany) and don't quite understand the American mentality against socialism that's been successfully implemented in so many European countries for a long time now.

European countries are not socialist. They are capitalist countries with high tax rates who don't spend anything on national defense. And the high levels of government taxing and spending have killed economic growth: Since 2008, the EU's economy has grown 13% while the US economy has grown 87%. Their GDPs used to be similar, but the US GDP is now almost double the EU.

I personally think the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST!!!!" irrational fear is mostly driven by hyper-capitalist Wall Street because they control so much of our government and don't want anyone stepping on their obscene profits.

What's wrong with profits? People should be allowed to make as much money as they can.

And if they can't make "socialist" stick they automatically then jump the fence to "radical Communist/Marxist" -- whatever that means because there is definitely a Communist Party in the United States, but the Democratic Party isn't it.

Not yet anyway 

I'm neither Republican nor Democrat and I'm just watching the rhetoric blow up all over the place, and to me it's just ... drama for political points.

Mamdani is a bad person. And he's bad for NYC.

[Fenris]

Bumping this up.

The Jihadi socialist Mamdani will by NYC's next mayor.

He won barely 50% of the vote, so he's governing over a very divided city. Nonetheless, he will try to enact all of his agenda anyway.

It also means that he was very beatable. Unfortunately Cuomo and Sliwa were not the ones to do it.

He got around 30% of the Jewish vote. The neighborhoods where Orthodox Jews live rejected him and strongly supported Cuomo, who got around 60% of the Jewish vote.

[RabbiKnife]

Like sheep voting for the wolf.

[Fenris]

Like sheep voting for the wolf.

I've said it before. Secular Jews in America have the Jewish soul that wants to change the world. Without religion, it attaches itself to whatever is trendy.