Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
Rentoul has decided to help him sleep tonight he should take on the Marxists who have infiltrated his party just before bed time. Probably not the wisest move
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
If Donald Trump runs and wins in 2020, then you'd be talking three consecutive Trump turns with a direct father-daughter succession, which is surely too monarchical for the US. There would have to be the suspicion that she was only running as proxy for a term-limited Donald, which while the base might lap that up would surely be unacceptable to the majority.
If Donald runs, gains the nomination and loses the general election, it'd still be three successive Trump nominations, with the added suspicion of being proxy to a loser.
If Donald runs and fails to gain the nomination, it can only be because the base has turned heavily against him, which'd leave Ivanka with an albatross the size of Air Force One round her neck. Same if he's impeached.
If Donald doesn't run, perhaps on health grounds, she might have more chance of appearing her own woman - but then her CV is pretty light.
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
No, it's not a statement I have ever made, or a statement the guy we are discussing ever made.
Edit: some wicked racism from the JC and that person they interview though suggesting some Jewish people do like Trump... right?
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
If Donald Trump runs and wins in 2020, then you'd be talking three consecutive Trump turns with a direct father-daughter succession, which is surely too monarchical for the US. There would have to be the suspicion that she was only running as proxy for a term-limited Donald, which while the base might lap that up would surely be unacceptable to the majority.
If Donald runs, gains the nomination and loses the general election, it'd still be three successive Trump nominations, with the added suspicion of being proxy to a loser.
If Donald runs and fails to gain the nomination, it can only be because the base has turned heavily against him, which'd leave Ivanka with an albatross the size of Air Force One round her neck. Same if he's impeached.
If Donald doesn't run, perhaps on health grounds, she might have more chance of appearing her own woman - but then her CV is pretty light.
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
I think it’s safe to assume that Lord S is a political numpty, and should (at best) stick to the day job.
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
No, it's not a statement I have ever made, or a statement the guy we are discussing ever made.
So your views are based on your understanding of statistics? Some Jews hold certain views about Trump, therefore the chances are that a random sample of 70 will contain at least some other people with those views, therefore it's fair game to say they are Trump fanatics?
Wasn’t a trade deal with India always fanciful - protectionist, logistical problems and they don’t go for our brands anyway?
FTAs, ex-EU (by order of ease):
EFTA South Korea The "White" Commonwealth (small gap) China
(big gap)
The US India
They will be on worse terms than those we currently have or would have through the EU but they will happen. There's a potential win with China because the UK won't mind an unequal treaty.
Seeing as we want to sell services, can you explain why it will be worse for us? In the TTIP deal one of the sticking points was the French insisting that streaming services in the US had to include French language film content. Seeing as we are the leading digital produces in Europe this only diluted our position. We would get a better deal without this. It is just called focus. Do you think you get a better deal with one position versus 28 completely different positions or one versus one where both sides are very focused on what they want.
I listened to the tape. I'm not confused one little bit - you appear to be - or I hope you are for your sake.
He literally says (and I transcribe): "Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
Now, if you want to tie yourself in knots, there probably are Jews that support Trump. Although as I said, they're rare given Jews' understandable aversion to anyone with a whiff of the fascist about them. If you look hard enough you can find a few members of any community who support anything. Using that as a general smear to cast aspersions on rabbis from across the Jewish community and those who've made complaints as "making up false information" due to some hidden Trumpian agenda (especially when many are on record as despising the great orange halfwit) is clearly anti-Semitic, as I point out, for the same reason accusing a group of Muslims reasonably setting out their complaints racism they've faced of acting in bad faith because some Muslims happen to support very bad people.
It's so obviously racist I can't believe you're trying to argue otherwise. Corbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.
Is it racist?
It seems to me that he’s criticising the rabbis accusing him by implying they are Trump supporters. That’s clearly a patheticly obvious swerve to try and avoid answering their challenge but I’m not sure it’s intrinsically racist?
Yes. Because it's taking a group of people who have disparate views on everything, finding something negative you can say about one or some of their number (in this case being 'Trump fanatics') and attempting to generalise about the group from that with no evidence whatsoever it's true, other than they share the same ethnicity as those you're making the negative claim about. Ignorance and inability to reason could perhaps provide a degree of mitigation - if he's incredibly thick - but it's still racist.
Wait, don't tell me: A.N.Onymous also says there'll be an immediate recession, half-a-million job losses, a £30bn financial black hole requiring an emergency budget to fix it, and an 18% fall in house prices.
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
No, it's not a statement I have ever made, or a statement the guy we are discussing ever made.
So your views are based on your understanding of statistics? Some Jews hold certain views about Trump, therefore the chances are that a random sample of 70 will contain at least some other people with those views, therefore it's fair game to say they are Trump fanatics?
If we are discussing statistical probability of something then it is probably best to base the chances on an understanding of statistics rather than an understanding of bakery, surely basing it on statistics is the logical thing to do.
Also the word fanatic wouldn't be accurate (although of the Trump supporters I guess some would be fanatical) but we see that all the time with Corbyn supporters accused of being cultists when you would really struggle to actually say they really are cultists.
ICorbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.
I don't see how I am tying myself in knots by suggesting there are Jewish people that support Trump because obviously there are.
Jonathan Arkush congratulated Trump on becoming president, there are actually some Jewish people that support Trump. Claiming that a true statement that some Jewish people support Trump is actually a racist statement is pretty stupid.
Shouting racist at true statements just demeans the word racist.
You're either monumentally stupid or pretending to be to justify supporting a racist.
You're tying yourself in knots because as I clearly stated that's not the bit that makes it racist. You'll always be able to find someone from any community who hold pretty much any view. Ed Balls found a (now naturalised) Mexican illegal immigrant who voted for Trump the other night. Arkush, whose congratulation of Trump you cite, called his travel ban "unjust" and an example of "evil intent towards Muslims" so he's hardly a "Trump fanatic" as Mr Willsman would have it. But that's by the by - we've established that, for the sake of argument we can find a Jew who supports Trump.
What makes it racist is using the trivial fact that some Jews may support Trump to smear an entire community as acting in bad faith. Which is literally what he did. He said, and I quote again: "So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
I'll repeat myself, as you don't seem to have an answer. It's a fact that some Muslims support unpleasant people. How would you, or any reasonable non-racist person react if a group of Muslims complained that an organisation's safeguarding policies were inadequate and an official said "Some Muslims support ISIS. So I'm not going to be lectured by ISIS fanatics making up false information. We should ask these Muslims where is your evidence?"
I hope, anyone would say "that's a bit racist" - so the question to you, if you'd agree is why do you think it's ok for you, Mr Willsman and Jeremy Corbyn, to treat Jews and the racism they face differently?
And it is also relevant to ask you why you support a government intent on the removal of all non Jews from the state of Israel? If 30,000 can march through Tel Aviv demanding a "Final Solution" to the Palestinian Problem then perhaps your own views can be questioned? Or is that Anti-Semitic?
Or perhaps opening a new Jewish Heritage Centre in East Jerusalem will be considered a chance for the Palestinians to learn of all the troubles the Jews have experienced, and not as many believe as an incitement to become a reason to expel any Palestinians still living there.
ICorbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous.
I don't see how I am tying myself in knots by suggesting there are Jewish people that support Trump because obviously there are.
Jonathan Arkush congratulated Trump on becoming president, there are actually some Jewish people that support Trump. Claiming that a true statement that some Jewish people support Trump is actually a racist statement is pretty stupid.
Shouting racist at true statements just demeans the word racist.
You're either monumentally stupid or pretending to be to justify supporting a racist.
You're tying yourself in knots because as I clearly stated that's not the bit that makes it racist. You'll always be able to find someone from any community who hold pretty much any view. Ed Balls found a (now naturalised) Mexican illegal immigrant who voted for Trump the other night. Arkush, whose congratulation of Trump you cite, called his travel ban "unjust" and an example of "evil intent towards Muslims" so he's hardly a "Trump fanatic" as Mr Willsman would have it. But that's by the by - we've established that, for the sake of argument we can find a Jew who supports Trump.
What makes it racist is using the trivial fact that some Jews may support Trump to smear an entire community as acting in bad faith. Which is literally what he did. He said, and I quote again: "So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
And it is also relevant to ask you why you support a government intent on the removal of all non Jews from the state of Israel? If 30,000 can march through Tel Aviv demanding a "Final Solution" to the Palestinian Problem then perhaps your own views can be questioned? Or is that Anti-Semitic?
Or perhaps opening a new Jewish Heritage Centre in East Jerusalem will be considered a chance for the Palestinians to learn of all the troubles the Jews have experienced, and not as many believe as an incitement to become a reason to expel any Palestinians still living there.
BOOM and there we have it. Bringing in Israel when we're only talking about Jews in the UK.
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
Can you name a single individual of whom this is true?
Jonathan Arkush congratulated him on becoming president.
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
No, it's not a statement I have ever made, or a statement the guy we are discussing ever made.
So your views are based on your understanding of statistics? Some Jews hold certain views about Trump, therefore the chances are that a random sample of 70 will contain at least some other people with those views, therefore it's fair game to say they are Trump fanatics?
If we are discussing statistical probability of something then it is probably best to base the chances on an understanding of statistics rather than an understanding of bakery, surely basing it on statistics is the logical thing to do.
Also the word fanatic wouldn't be accurate (although of the Trump supporters I guess some would be fanatical) but we see that all the time with Corbyn supporters accused of being cultists when you would really struggle to actually say they really are cultists.
But it's an abuse of statistics to make a bogus claim. Unbelievable that you're defending it.
That sounds like the Nazi party, in about the mid-late 1920s. Still unsure of itself, but also confident enough to be virulently anti-Jewish.
Okay I think I now understand, some racist right wingers don't actually realise they are hypocrites, that is how they can brazenly accuse Labour of being racist...
I never realised that they didn't actually know, I just assumed....
Also you could make a charge of hypocrisy at someone who is supportive of Trump who has supporters marching with torches chanting "Jew will not replace us" claiming Labour is a threat to Jews
His statement in November 2016 read:
“I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory.
"After a divisive campaign, I hope that Mr Trump will move to build bridges and ensure that America’s standing as a beacon of progress, tolerance and free-thinking remains strong.”
Does that sound like a Trump fanatic to you, or just someone trying to be cautiously diplomatic?
Words like fanatic, cultist and fanboy are used interchangeably with supporter, kinda rude but we've seen it plenty with Corbyn cultists etc.
_____________________________________________________________ That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take". ______________________________________________________________
"There are people"? Do you think every Jew is somehow partially accountable for the views that some other Jews express?
No, it's not a statement I have ever made, or a statement the guy we are discussing ever made.
So your views are based on your understanding of statistics? Some Jews hold certain views about Trump, therefore the chances are that a random sample of 70 will contain at least some other people with those views, therefore it's fair game to say they are Trump fanatics?
If we are discussing statistical probability of something then it is probably best to base the chances on an understanding of statistics rather than an understanding of bakery, surely basing it on statistics is the logical thing to do.
Also the word fanatic wouldn't be accurate (although of the Trump supporters I guess some would be fanatical) but we see that all the time with Corbyn supporters accused of being cultists when you would really struggle to actually say they really are cultists.
But it's an abuse of statistics to make a bogus claim. Unbelievable that you're defending it.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
Wow, just as the government were shooting themselves in the foot for the fifth day running, Labour decide they want to travel back in time to the 1930s.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
I said a week or so back that Javid had to be the favourite: he’s on manoeuvres to position himself as a moderate Cameroon style leader but one who backs Brexit.
I can see Javid PM, Gove Chancellor, Hunt staying at the foreign office. Not sure about the replacement at the Home Office but that looks to me a likely top team.
Javid isn't a brilliant politician but he could reach the top if everyone else knocks themselves out and he's the only one left outside the fray so-to-speak.
This country is well and truly F****** when that is what we think will be PM, as if the last two Tory Turkeys have not been bad enough, how low can they stoop.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
I think you got confused in your calculations there.
Some Trump supporters may be Jews (note - he doesn't give any examples). These rabbis are Jews.
The next line is the one I chnged.
Therefore, some rabbis are Trump supporters.
Here is the correct version, note it doesn't end in a racist statement.... maths can be hard sometimes.
Here are his words:
He then says: “And some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump – they are Trump fanatics and all the rest of it. So I am not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up duff information without any evidence at all.
“So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this Party?’”
My version on the evidence we have is unfortunately right and yours is wrong. He is clearly leaping from 'Jews support Trump. These people are Jews. Therefore they are Trump supporters.' Which as I noted above is bunkum anyway (although come to honk of it it may be because of Trump's support for Israel and decision to cause utter unnecessary chaos to show he's a man move the US embassy to Jerusalem).
Good night.
You've got it wrong again.
The maths just doesn't work, unless he makes a separate claim somewhere else about all the rabbi's being Trump fans then we have to make an assumption which we have no evidence for.
If x=3 or x =4 (some Jews trump fans or some Jews not)
and any y = x (all rabbis are Jews)
then y = 3 which is Trump fans or y=4 which isn't Trump fans.
The maths just doesn't work the other way.
If change his words, or change the assumptions as you did so y=3 but doesn't =4 then yes it does start to sound racist, but that is true of lots of statements.
Goodnight.
It's a straightforward logical fallacy to extrapolate from "some Jews are Trump fans" to "some of *these* Jews are Trump fans". As he would say, "Where's the evidence?"
A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
or 5. Don't think true statements like some Jewish people support Trump are racist at all but in fact true.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.
Very brave thing for her to do. Well worth a donation!
Thanks, MM - and thank you to everyone who's donated. It's much appreciated and in an excellent cause.
We have a friend whose young daughter is going through chemo right now. Lovely to think your good lady might have donated the hair that makes her wig.
My best wishes to them - which seems an inadequate response but it's all I can say (other than if you've not already donated, this is exactly why Jenny did it and feel free to sponsor her on the link above).
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.
Very brave thing for her to do. Well worth a donation!
Thanks, MM - and thank you to everyone who's donated. It's much appreciated and in an excellent cause.
We have a friend whose young daughter is going through chemo right now. Lovely to think your good lady might have donated the hair that makes her wig.
My best wishes to them - which seems an inadequate response but it's all I can say (other than if you've not already donated, this is exactly why Jenny did it and feel free to sponsor her on the link above).
Your wife's action is more than adequate for the two of you! My donation is already in to her.
Has British politics ever been so debased? A dangerously incompetent, blithering, autistic fool for a prime minister, an actual Jew-hater, Marxist and traitor as leader of the Opposition.
What did we do to deserve this? Is God reading a lot of Irish history, and He's really angry about the Famine, or what?
We, the collective we, as a society, have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
[...]
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
There is another way the bet could win. She could be his running mate in 2020. Still, 50/1 makes little appeal.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Labour's not doing well in the polls. It's up against a government that's riven with splits, devoid of personalities, especially at the top, failing to deliver on Brexit, and doing little else. The leader is a defensive, socially awkward administrator with an unfortunate facial tick. What should be the government's one big boast - the economy - is barely being mentioned. On top of which, the Lib Dems are led by an invisible has-been, and the SNP are on the decline and mired in failings. And despite all that, Labour's only a couple of points or so ahead. If someone with the skill and charisma of Blair was leading Labour, they'd be 25+ points in front. Even the wonkhead Miliband would have a double-digits lead.
Has British politics ever been so debased? A dangerously incompetent, blithering, autistic fool for a prime minister, an actual Jew-hater, Marxist and traitor as leader of the Opposition.
What did we do to deserve this? Is God reading a lot of Irish history, and He's really angry about the Famine, or what?
It is very unfortunate, but on the other hand the voters do keep on backing these people.
The Tories and Labour could both still get 30% of the vote in a general election (or not very far short of it, at any rate) if they were led by lab-engineered clones of Mobutu Sese Seko or Nicolae Ceaucescu. The Conservatives actually have won more than 30% of the vote in every single GE from 1835 onwards.
Most people vote robotically for the same party every time, and most of the remainder back the red or blue candidate according to whether their greater priority is (a) getting higher benefit handouts or (b) stoking house price inflation.
Let us set aside for one moment the arguments about whether Theresa May is or is not competent, and Corbyn is or is not terribly fond of Jews, and ask: does it really make that much of a difference?
I almost feel sorry for Jezziah. He has to defend Wilsman regardless of what his own ears hear and what his own brain thinks. The Kali Ma have branded their slate "the JC9". If you vote for anyone else then He loses. And that means the end of the Labour Party.
So regardless of morality sanity or basic logic Jezziah has to go and defend literally anything that Wilsman says. And its not just Jezziah - over on Fakebook Laboir members on a Labour group are denouncing this as "fake news"
Has British politics ever been so debased? A dangerously incompetent, blithering, autistic fool for a prime minister, an actual Jew-hater, Marxist and traitor as leader of the Opposition.
What did we do to deserve this? Is God reading a lot of Irish history, and He's really angry about the Famine, or what?
We, the collective we, as a society, have fallen asleep at the wheel.
I'd say it was time for us to wake up, but unfortunately I think we somehow tore the wheel off while we slept as well.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Labour's not doing well in the polls. It's up against a government that's riven with splits, devoid of personalities, especially at the top, failing to deliver on Brexit, and doing little else. The leader is a defensive, socially awkward administrator with an unfortunate facial tick. What should be the government's one big boast - the economy - is barely being mentioned. On top of which, the Lib Dems are led by an invisible has-been, and the SNP are on the decline and mired in failings. And despite all that, Labour's only a couple of points or so ahead. If someone with the skill and charisma of Blair was leading Labour, they'd be 25+ points in front. Even the wonkhead Miliband would have a double-digits lead.
But my point is that all of this stuff's going on and STILL four-tenths of the electorate says "Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister? What a wonderful idea!" It's entirely possible that they would be nearer to 50% with a less divisive leader, but 38-40% really can't be described as bad going. And it certainly doesn't suggest any widespread interest in what has been a long, steady trickle of pretty revolting allegations.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
[...]
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
There is another way the bet could win. She could be his running mate in 2020. Still, 50/1 makes little appeal.
If she is his running mate on a successful ticket in 2020, there may not be a Presidency by 2024 - we may have the Royalty/Dictatorship turned down by Washington. ;!
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
To make sense of what he said, those assumptions have to be made.
ICorbyn really has blackenned hearts and maddened heads. It's just so poisonous
And it is also relevant to ask you why you support a government intent on the removal of all non Jews from the state of Israel? If 30,000 can march through Tel Aviv demanding a "Final Solution" to the Palestinian Problem then perhaps your own views can be questioned? Or is that Anti-Semitic?
Or perhaps opening a new Jewish Heritage Centre in East Jerusalem will be considered a chance for the Palestinians to learn of all the troubles the Jews have experienced, and not as many believe as an incitement to become a reason to expel any Palestinians still living there.
BOOM and there we have it. Bringing in Israel when we're only talking about Jews in the UK.
FFS.
If you think this is all only about Corbyn or the Labour Party then you must be something unusual on this site, politically naive, and that I really don't believe.
This is all part of the game. But if Corbyn becomes PM then his well known support for the Palestinians will start bringing into question the legality of the Israeli government and it's actions. If the funding and supplies of weapons starts drying up from the UK, then probably many in the US will start wondering why they are paying so much as well.
That the "Anti-Semite" theme seems to be coordinated between the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Minister: B Netanyahu (also Pm)), The Friends of Israel (funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) the leadership and ex-leadership of the BoD, and other Right wing Jewish organisations, most of whom are well-known members of the Conservative Party, including the Conservative Vice Chairman in charge of the Media team, Mick Davis, then perhaps what is going on is not so simple as some would like you to believe... Of course many in the Labour Friends of Israel would also like Blair back in charge of the party is mute...
Of course, the real bet is on the first to see the inside of a prison cell, Corbyn or Netanyahu. Apart from possible charges of crimes against humanity, it seems that Netanyahu is under investigation and I understand that the Israeli Justice departments have confirmed at least 3 charges leading to indictment are just about to be made, while Sara Netanyahu has been indicted, charged and will stand trial this autumn for a frozen meal scandal, on a large scale.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Whereabouts - prime London, zone 2 or out in the sticks?
Of course thanks to help to buy a fair few people are paying 40 per cent more than the fair asking price - before Osborne/Hammond government backed ramping - for their shiny new builds in London.
Has British politics ever been so debased? A dangerously incompetent, blithering, autistic fool for a prime minister, an actual Jew-hater, Marxist and traitor as leader of the Opposition.
What did we do to deserve this? Is God reading a lot of Irish history, and He's really angry about the Famine, or what?
We, the collective we, as a society, have fallen asleep at the wheel.
I'd say it was time for us to wake up, but unfortunately I think we somehow tore the wheel off while we slept as well.
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
[...]
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
There is another way the bet could win. She could be his running mate in 2020. Still, 50/1 makes little appeal.
If she is his running mate on a successful ticket in 2020, there may not be a Presidency by 2024 - we may have the Royalty/Dictatorship turned down by Washington. ;!
I think it more likely that Trump will ask/demand change to allow a 3rd term. After all, that's what strongmen do all over the globe.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
Re-read this:
"Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
If you can't work it out for yourself, you are either too thick or too willfully blind to convince.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
I didn't indicate I did know for sure.
I assume you understand the phrase probably implies possibility. I also assume you understand the phrase "hard to know" usually means I don't know for definite.
Also of course that reason would transfer over to some degree. In fact I quoted the JC (a Jewish newspaper) earlier where a British Jewish person gave the exact reason for supporting Trump that is mentioned in the article as the reason he is popular with the American Jewish Orthodox community, so a true statement rather than a prejudiced one.
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
[...]
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
There is another way the bet could win. She could be his running mate in 2020. Still, 50/1 makes little appeal.
If she is his running mate on a successful ticket in 2020, there may not be a Presidency by 2024 - we may have the Royalty/Dictatorship turned down by Washington. ;!
I think it more likely that Trump will ask/demand change to allow a 3rd term. After all, that's what strongmen do all over the globe.
I do wonder why Putin didn't go down that route, but I suppose his alternate solution worked even better.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Labour's not doing well in the polls. It's up against a government that's riven with splits, devoid of personalities, especially at the top, failing to deliver on Brexit, and doing little else. The leader is a defensive, socially awkward administrator with an unfortunate facial tick. What should be the government's one big boast - the economy - is barely being mentioned. On top of which, the Lib Dems are led by an invisible has-been, and the SNP are on the decline and mired in failings. And despite all that, Labour's only a couple of points or so ahead. If someone with the skill and charisma of Blair was leading Labour, they'd be 25+ points in front. Even the wonkhead Miliband would have a double-digits lead.
But my point is that all of this stuff's going on and STILL four-tenths of the electorate says "Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister? What a wonderful idea!" It's entirely possible that they would be nearer to 50% with a less divisive leader, but 38-40% really can't be described as bad going. And it certainly doesn't suggest any widespread interest in what has been a long, steady trickle of pretty revolting allegations.
Pretty much. Is the most recent incarnation of this story - which has been going on for years - actually changing things? It seems unlikely.
With this and a Brexit mess with no obvious fixes, politics is certainly not fun any longer.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
snip
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
Re-read this:
"Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
If you can't work it out for yourself, you are either too thick or too willfully blind to convince.
Apart from anything else, it can't possibly be made up and false information without evidence, because Jezza (God blesseth the anointed one etc) has admitted there is a problem.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
To make sense of what he said, those assumptions have to be made.
It wasn't assumed that some of these Jewish people must support Trump because they are Jewish.
It was assumed because some Jewish people do support Trump.
A little social news, and a small beg. My wife "Braved the Shave" last weekend, in support of Macmillan. I'm told that her hair will go to make a wig for children, presumably for those undergoing or having undergone chemotherapy.
Very brave thing for her to do. Well worth a donation!
Thanks, MM - and thank you to everyone who's donated. It's much appreciated and in an excellent cause.
We have a friend whose young daughter is going through chemo right now. Lovely to think your good lady might have donated the hair that makes her wig.
My best wishes to them - which seems an inadequate response but it's all I can say (other than if you've not already donated, this is exactly why Jenny did it and feel free to sponsor her on the link above).
Your wife's action is more than adequate for the two of you! My donation is already in to her.
Which bogus claim did I make? happy to be shown the flaw in my workings.
It's bogus to reason on the basis that if some individuals have a certain view, other individuals from the same group will necessarily hold the same views. All the more so when you're talking about different nationalities - American versus British.
Where did I claim that?
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
Ok, let's be specific: How many of the 70 rabbis he refers to do you think are Trump fans?
Probably a fairly low number.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
The correct answer would be that you have no way of knowing because the fact that some Americans might support Trump has absolutely no bearing on what 70 rabbis in the UK think about him. To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews is where the prejudice comes in.
To assume that the answer will be non-zero because they are Jews and that therefore the Rabbis are hypocritical and so none of them should be listened to is where the prejudice comes in.
Okay but where are those assumptions made?
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
To make sense of what he said, those assumptions have to be made.
It wasn't assumed that some of these Jewish people must support Trump because they are Jewish.
It was assumed because some Jewish people do support Trump.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Still letting those pesky Jews get under your skin I see.
Hah, yeah me, Wilsman and the Jewish Chronicle are all baiting Jewish people by claiming that some of them support Trump...
You still fantasising about running Muslims out of their homes?
I don't think you ever responded about the fake news of all those Jews living in Israel thousands of years ago.
You were the one worried about indigenous populations being forcibly displaced weren't you?
Who should we march on?
I'm sure if a large group of Muslims came to Britain and started killing us and driving us from our homes you'd be sat there calmly saying 'well if we really want to stop them we should go to the USA first and drive out the Americans and give all the land back to the Native americans, then maybe we can deal with the current situation, it would be hypocritical otherwise'
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Was the initial asking price 40% too high?
As an aside, there is a curious compression happening in London. A large three bedroom apartment on Shaftesbury Avenue in good condition costs barely more than a four bedroom house in Crouch End. 15 years ago the Crouch End property would have cost £400,000, while the apartment would have been £1.5m.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Labour's not doing well in the polls. It's up against a government that's riven with splits, devoid of personalities, especially at the top, failing to deliver on Brexit, and doing little else. The leader is a defensive, socially awkward administrator with an unfortunate facial tick. What should be the government's one big boast - the economy - is barely being mentioned. On top of which, the Lib Dems are led by an invisible has-been, and the SNP are on the decline and mired in failings. And despite all that, Labour's only a couple of points or so ahead. If someone with the skill and charisma of Blair was leading Labour, they'd be 25+ points in front. Even the wonkhead Miliband would have a double-digits lead.
But my point is that all of this stuff's going on and STILL four-tenths of the electorate says "Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister? What a wonderful idea!" It's entirely possible that they would be nearer to 50% with a less divisive leader, but 38-40% really can't be described as bad going. And it certainly doesn't suggest any widespread interest in what has been a long, steady trickle of pretty revolting allegations.
Pretty much. Is the most recent incarnation of this story - which has been going on for years - actually changing things? It seems unlikely.
With this and a Brexit mess with no obvious fixes, politics is certainly not fun any longer.
The problem is when the stories claiming he is racist are sometimes things like, some Jewish people are Trump fans or he met a group of Jewish people (but bad Jewish people, the Jewdas story) then it is going to be hard to get people to think he is racist.
Still letting those pesky Jews get under your skin I see.
Hah, yeah me, Wilsman and the Jewish Chronicle are all baiting Jewish people by claiming that some of them support Trump...
You still fantasising about running Muslims out of their homes?
I don't think you ever responded about the fake news of all those Jews living in Israel thousands of years ago.
You were the one worried about indigenous populations being forcibly displaced weren't you?
Who should we march on?
I'm sure if a large group of Muslims came to Britain and started killing us and driving us from our homes you'd be sat there calmly saying 'well if we really want to stop them we should go to the USA first and drive out the Americans and give all the land back to the Native americans, then maybe we can deal with the current situation, it would be hypocritical otherwise'
Well, the Muslims did venture as far as Tours in France in 732 AD...
It is a bet I've thought about but I can't really see a clear route for her. She does often seem to be the only grown-up in the room but she is not a member of either party. Ivanka would also, while we are on the subject, be the first Jewish president.
50/1 is far too short, even in a country with so many political dynasties.
[...]
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
There is another way the bet could win. She could be his running mate in 2020. Still, 50/1 makes little appeal.
If she is his running mate on a successful ticket in 2020, there may not be a Presidency by 2024 - we may have the Royalty/Dictatorship turned down by Washington. ;!
I think it more likely that Trump will ask/demand change to allow a 3rd term. After all, that's what strongmen do all over the globe.
I do wonder why Putin didn't go down that route, but I suppose his alternate solution worked even better.
Putin did change the constitution to extend the terms from four to six years, and the Russian constitution only prevented/prevents more than two successive terms, unlike the US, which prevents more than two *in total* (or two-and-a-half, if a VP succeeds in the second half of a term). Hence why he's now on his fourth term (fifth if you count the short period between Yeltsin's resignation and the 2000 election).
Not to put to fine a point on it, is there any evidence that this is having a negative effect on Labour?
A lot of people on Twitter who don't support Labour, like Dan Hodges, are obviously pretending to care in that transparently vocal way he has so ineffectually mastered.
But is it *actually* harming Labour? Because if it is, where?
Wait, don't tell me: A.N.Onymous also says there'll be an immediate recession, half-a-million job losses, a £30bn financial black hole requiring an emergency budget to fix it, and an 18% fall in house prices.
Well, I wouldn't bet on the emergency budget "fixing it", as in all likelihood the government would go all expansionary.
But while that forecast is worse than mine, it wouldn't be inconceivable if we stumble into No Deal.
Meanwhile over on Facebook, someone has just accused Israel of being behind this whole antisemitism fake news scandal. But in accusing a foreign Jewish state of conspiring apparently it definitely isn't antisemitism
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Was the initial asking price 40% too high?
If it was, then rcs1000 would be quids in. 1.4 * 0.6 = 0.84. i.e. he'd be paying 16% under the odds.
Still letting those pesky Jews get under your skin I see.
Hah, yeah me, Wilsman and the Jewish Chronicle are all baiting Jewish people by claiming that some of them support Trump...
You still fantasising about running Muslims out of their homes?
I don't think you ever responded about the fake news of all those Jews living in Israel thousands of years ago.
You were the one worried about indigenous populations being forcibly displaced weren't you?
Who should we march on?
I'm sure if a large group of Muslims came to Britain and started killing us and driving us from our homes you'd be sat there calmly saying 'well if we really want to stop them we should go to the USA first and drive out the Americans and give all the land back to the Native americans, then maybe we can deal with the current situation, it would be hypocritical otherwise'
We are talking about the Jews in Israel thousands of years ago.
One indigenous people you don't seem that worked up about.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Exactly. Given what’s been revealed, it’s remarkable that they are still polling around 40%. Some of the stories posted on here haven’t received that much prominence in the media: only two newspapers cover it tomorrow, The Times and the Telegraph and it’s not the main headline. It’s not on the BBC news website front page either. Though rather curiously when one of the stories did feature as the ‘big’ story on the website on Sunday (Ian Austin) it was hardly the most read story, even when it staring readers in the face. I definitely think the climate has moved to one where racism and xenophobia seem more tolerated, and that has allowed Labour to not really be punished in the polls for this.
One of the reasons the web encourages trolls is that people choose to pointlessly engage with the most shocking statements made rather than people who might be interested in a more fruitful debate.
Don't Feed The Trolls.
Before Brexit, it was very common on PB to have some really interesting discussions.
There is no one left to chat to about shoes since Plato got banned. Even cooking feels like a no-no
It is Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
As it happens, shoes are a very controversial subject chez Meeks. When we were in the process of shifting some of our clothes from London to our new house, my secret shoe stash was discovered. There were scenes.
You've entirely moved out of London?!
No. Actually tonight I’m in the London flat. But selling it is high on the agenda now.
FPT - probably a good time to get out of the London market. Anecdotally the discount rate is increasing. Asking prices are stubbornly high but buyers are becoming more brazen with asking for discounts. It's definitely a buyer's market in London.
I'm buying a flat in London for about 40% less than the initial asking price.
Whereabouts - prime London, zone 2 or out in the sticks?
Of course thanks to help to buy a fair few people are paying 40 per cent more than the fair asking price - before Osborne/Hammond government backed ramping - for their shiny new builds in London.
Because this is something mainly noticed by people interested in politics. Most voters belong to the following groups:
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people) 2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder) 3. Approve of Jew baiting 4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
Exactly. Given what’s been revealed, it’s remarkable that they are still polling around 40%. Some of the stories posted on here haven’t received that much prominence in the media: only two newspapers cover it tomorrow, The Times and the Telegraph and it’s not the main headline. It’s not on the BBC news website front page either. Though rather curiously when one of the stories did feature as the ‘big’ story on the website on Sunday (Ian Austin) it was hardly the most read story, even when it staring readers in the face. I definitely think the climate has moved to one where racism and xenophobia seem more tolerated, and that has allowed Labour to not really be punished in the polls for this.
It is no longer news, and it is all priced in. Who didn't know a year ago, or 3 years ago, that Jezza was quite willing to share a platform with anti-Semitism and describe them as friends?
All it's helping to do is shore up Labour's Muslim vote by reinforcing Labour's aggressively anti-Israel credentials.
It's not going to harm Corbyn and if you think it is you really don't understand Labour under Corbyn.
As for the electorate? To the extent that they know or care anything about it, Israel is that shithole on TV with a penchant for carpet bombing orphanages. So Corbyn has nothing to lose electorally.
Comments
https://www.thejc.com/news/news-features/donald-trump-protest-jewish-bloc-1.467230
_____________________________________________________________
That dislike of Trump is not uniform across the Jewish community, however. There are people who feel that because Mr Trump is pro-Israel, Jews should support him.
Ms Resnick described this as “a very unhealthy attitude to take".
______________________________________________________________
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1024037155843334145
He's running down the clock, that's all he's doing.
If Donald Trump runs and wins in 2020, then you'd be talking three consecutive Trump turns with a direct father-daughter succession, which is surely too monarchical for the US. There would have to be the suspicion that she was only running as proxy for a term-limited Donald, which while the base might lap that up would surely be unacceptable to the majority.
If Donald runs, gains the nomination and loses the general election, it'd still be three successive Trump nominations, with the added suspicion of being proxy to a loser.
If Donald runs and fails to gain the nomination, it can only be because the base has turned heavily against him, which'd leave Ivanka with an albatross the size of Air Force One round her neck. Same if he's impeached.
If Donald doesn't run, perhaps on health grounds, she might have more chance of appearing her own woman - but then her CV is pretty light.
The 2024 election is probably too soon for her. If she is serious about a political career - of which the evidence is limited - then 2028 would be a better bet. She'd also only be 43 at the 2024 election, which I think would make her the youngest Republican nominee ever.
I'd be wanting well into three figures before backing her to become POTUS by 2025.
(I also assume that 'by 2025' includes 'in 2025'. If it's 'before 1 Jan 2025', then it's a terrible bet and more like 500/1.
Edit: some wicked racism from the JC and that person they interview though suggesting some Jewish people do like Trump... right?
In the TTIP deal one of the sticking points was the French insisting that streaming services in the US had to include French language film content. Seeing as we are the leading digital produces in Europe this only diluted our position. We would get a better deal without this.
It is just called focus. Do you think you get a better deal with one position versus 28 completely different positions or one versus one where both sides are very focused on what they want.
But not in these mad times...
Also the word fanatic wouldn't be accurate (although of the Trump supporters I guess some would be fanatical) but we see that all the time with Corbyn supporters accused of being cultists when you would really struggle to actually say they really are cultists.
And it is also relevant to ask you why you support a government intent on the removal of all non Jews from the state of Israel? If 30,000 can march through Tel Aviv demanding a "Final Solution" to the Palestinian Problem then perhaps your own views can be questioned? Or is that Anti-Semitic?
Or perhaps opening a new Jewish Heritage Centre in East Jerusalem will be considered a chance for the Palestinians to learn of all the troubles the Jews have experienced, and not as many believe as an incitement to become a reason to expel any Palestinians still living there.
FFS.
I never realised that they didn't actually know, I just assumed....
Project Fear Episode 5: The Fear Strikes Back
1. Never heard of this controversy (most people)
2. Have heard of it, but don't really care - might cause some tutting for the sake of looking righteous, but quickly forgotten when deciding how to vote (most of the remainder)
3. Approve of Jew baiting
4. Disapprove of Jew baiting, but think it's nothing directly to do with JC and/or a political smear
If Average Joe Public really gave a toss about this problem then Labour wouldn't be doing so well in the polls.
https://twitter.com/dallo100/status/1024038975990849539
I specifically said some Jews, if what you are accusing me of is true then surely I would have said all Jews on the basis that some automatically means all
In fact the basis of my argument has been some doesn't mean all.
Also to those wondering how Corbyn gets away with it, the general public aren't going to hear someone say some Jewish people support Trump and think OMG RACIST!
Because they haven't got an inbuilt bias against Corbyn.
If you come up with an actual racist statement then people will be a lot more shocked.
5. Don't think true statements like some Jewish people support Trump are racist at all but in fact true.
He has very strong support in the American Orthodox Jewish community.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-when-will-orthodox-jews-face-the-truth-about-our-racist-president-1.6137009
But obviously they aren't the same. The reason the Americans Orthodox Jewish support him so strongly would be true for here as they are regarding Israel rather than domestic policies.
Hard to say really, anything from just a few to up to something in double figures.
https://twitter.com/TimRoss_1/status/1024010968177823744?s=19
In a nutshell. The Cult. It is more important to get a "fairer" government that tackle racism.
Wow!
The Tories and Labour could both still get 30% of the vote in a general election (or not very far short of it, at any rate) if they were led by lab-engineered clones of Mobutu Sese Seko or Nicolae Ceaucescu. The Conservatives actually have won more than 30% of the vote in every single GE from 1835 onwards.
Most people vote robotically for the same party every time, and most of the remainder back the red or blue candidate according to whether their greater priority is (a) getting higher benefit handouts or (b) stoking house price inflation.
Let us set aside for one moment the arguments about whether Theresa May is or is not competent, and Corbyn is or is not terribly fond of Jews, and ask: does it really make that much of a difference?
Saying some jewish people support Trump is not racist and those claiming it is for political advantage should feel ashamed.
So regardless of morality sanity or basic logic Jezziah has to go and defend literally anything that Wilsman says. And its not just Jezziah - over on Fakebook Laboir members on a Labour group are denouncing this as "fake news"
The assumptions he didn't make could be considered racist, the ones he mde not.
Of course thanks to help to buy a fair few people are paying 40 per cent more than the fair asking price - before Osborne/Hammond government backed ramping - for their shiny new builds in London.
"Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump, they're Trump fanatics. So I'm not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up false information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis where is your evidence?"
If you can't work it out for yourself, you are either too thick or too willfully blind to convince.
I assume you understand the phrase probably implies possibility. I also assume you understand the phrase "hard to know" usually means I don't know for definite.
Also of course that reason would transfer over to some degree. In fact I quoted the JC (a Jewish newspaper) earlier where a British Jewish person gave the exact reason for supporting Trump that is mentioned in the article as the reason he is popular with the American Jewish Orthodox community, so a true statement rather than a prejudiced one.
Still letting those pesky Jews get under your skin I see.
With this and a Brexit mess with no obvious fixes, politics is certainly not fun any longer.
It was assumed because some Jewish people do support Trump.
You still fantasising about running Muslims out of their homes?
You were the one worried about indigenous populations being forcibly displaced weren't you?
Who should we march on?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle
That is what I was trying to explain to someone earlier!
I just had to run through the entire thing to show why it didn't work rather than just name it.
Anger leads to Hate!
Hate leads to Suffering!
A recording has emerged of NEC member Peter Willsman claiming Jewish "Trump fanatics" are behind recent claims of anti-Semitism."
https://news.sky.com/story/corbyn-ally-peter-willsman-claims-trump-fanatics-behind-anti-semitism-claims-11454843
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Not to put to fine a point on it, is there any evidence that this is having a negative effect on Labour?
A lot of people on Twitter who don't support Labour, like Dan Hodges, are obviously pretending to care in that transparently vocal way he has so ineffectually mastered.
But is it *actually* harming Labour? Because if it is, where?
But while that forecast is worse than mine, it wouldn't be inconceivable if we stumble into No Deal.
One indigenous people you don't seem that worked up about.
Oh yes. Because they were Jews.
It's not going to harm Corbyn and if you think it is you really don't understand Labour under Corbyn.
As for the electorate? To the extent that they know or care anything about it, Israel is that shithole on TV with a penchant for carpet bombing orphanages. So Corbyn has nothing to lose electorally.